Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

[John Caldwell]

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

This is not true. It is an argument that some Calvinists make but it reflects a lack of understanding (or honesty) about other positions.

A professor used to constantly argue that everyone believed in limited atonement because Jesus did not die to save dogs and cats (Tom used to argue that).

But the fact is many believe the Atonement in terms of Christ being the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world (every man) and reconciling mankind to God is not universalism. The reason is that the work has two end results - people are either "in Christ" where there is no condemnation or they are judged by Christ.

 

[John Caldwell]

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?”

The ultimate disagreement is the philosophies that Penal Substitution Theory assumes.

Here are a few examples for illustration:

1. Divine justice is retributive justice
2. Sin creates a demand or debt on divine justice
3. The demands of divine justice must be met in order for forgiveness to be possible
4. An innocent man can justly be punished for the sins of another instead of the guilty person.
5. Actual sins must be punished to satisfy divine justice
6. Wrath must be expended for wrath to be avoided
7. The wages or consequences of sin that created a demand on divine justice was a spiritual death


Those philosophical conclusions are applied to Scripture in order to develop theoretical ideas such as:

1. Adam died spiritually in the Garden of Eden
2. God punished Jesus in stead of punishing us
3. Salvation is the righteousness of God manifested through the Law as Christ suffered instead of us
4. The cross was an example of divine punishment
5. God separated from Jesus on the Cross
6. Jesus experienced a type of "spiritual death" that the lost will experience in terms of a separation from God.
7. Christ suffered and died not at the hands of wicked men but at the hand of God.

The substance of the disagreement is that I do not believe the philosophy (the first part) correct so I do not arrive at the same conclusions (the second part).


I hope this helps clarify Jane.

 

[John Caldwell]

Good then glad you are back to PSA

If you consider that Penal Substitution Theory then I never left.

I never argued against the fact Christ 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. I argued against the idea that Christ was punished once for sins.

I am not sure it is helpful to insist that Penal Substitution Theory may exclude the view that God punished Jesus instead of us. But you can do whatever you wish.

 

[John Caldwell]

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

I do not see that people have a disagreement over the word "penalty". One could say the "wages", "consequences", and even "penalty" for sin is death.

While a punishment can impose a penalty, the word "penalty" does not mean "punishment".

In general a penalty is "a disadvantage or hardship due to some action". The wages of sin is death.

A punishment is "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense".

In Scripture you are assuming the "penalty" was a result of retributive justice for an offense, and therefore a punishment.

We do not share the same presuppositions so we end up with different conclusions.

My purpose was to have you explain your presuppositions. You refused (or were not able) when it came to Scripture.

But what about this one word. Why do you assume that "penalty" automatically denotes "punishment" when this is not necessary per the meaning of the actual word?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

The ultimate disagreement is the philosophies that Penal Substitution Theory assumes.

Here are a few examples for illustration:

1. Divine justice is retributive justice
2. Sin creates a demand or debt on divine justice
3. The demands of divine justice must be met in order for forgiveness to be possible
4. An innocent man can justly be punished for the sins of another instead of the guilty person.
5. Actual sins must be punished to satisfy divine justice
6. Wrath must be expended for wrath to be avoided
7. The wages or consequences of sin that created a demand on divine justice was a spiritual death


Those philosophical conclusions are applied to Scripture in order to develop theoretical ideas such as:

1. Adam died spiritually in the Garden of Eden
2. God punished Jesus in stead of punishing us
3. Salvation is the righteousness of God manifested through the Law as Christ suffered instead of us
4. The cross was an example of divine punishment
5. God separated from Jesus on the Cross
6. Jesus experienced a type of "spiritual death" that the lost will experience in terms of a separation from God.
7. Christ suffered and died not at the hands of wicked men but at the hand of God.

The substance of the disagreement is that I do not believe the philosophy (the first part) correct so I do not arrive at the same conclusions (the second part).


I hope this helps clarify Jane.

John, the reason I'm getting away from the fancy words is because they usually come packed with background assumptions / definitions which may not be identically understood between two persons. So instead, I break things down into thier simplest word components so things can be better examined and conveyed. Let me show you an example of this, taking your first seven points.

1. God is infinitely Just and His Justice can never be denied.
2. Sin is us turning against His ways and violating this justice.
3. This violation / debt must be reconciled before forgiveness happens. No one can just wave God's justice away.
4. An unblemished savior can take on the debts of another.
5-7. <These were already covered above>

Does the way I'm breaking things down into simple components make sense?

 

[John Caldwell]

John, the reason I'm getting away from the fancy words is because they usually come packed with background assumptions / definitions which may not be identically understood between two persons. So instead, I break things down into thier simplest word components so things can be better examined and conveyed. Let me show you an example of this, taking your first seven points.

1. God is infinitely Just and His Justice can never be denied.
2. Sin is us turning against His ways and violating this justice.
3. This violation / debt must be reconciled before forgiveness happens. No one can just wave God's justice away.
4. An unblemished savior can take on the debts of another.
5-7. <These were already covered above>

Does the way I'm breaking things down into simple components make sense?

I actually agree with the first three points..

The difference may be how God remedied the "sin problem".

I do not think Penal Substitution Theory biblically solves the problem of sin, partly because it remains within the law.

Instead I believe God re-creates man in Christ and we die to sin. Justice is met apart from the law.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I actually agree with the first three points..

The difference may be how God remedied the "sin problem".

I do not think Penal Substitution Theory biblically solves the problem of sin, partly because it remains within the law.

Instead I believe God re-creates man in Christ and we die to sin. Justice is met apart from the law.

You're still using the fancy words packed lots of background assumptions/definitions.

I'll just continue on with explaining my view here. I tried to echo your layout in post 302, but it didn't succeed,

0. Spiritual death is defined as being separated from God because a person (due to sin) a person is unclean and no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.
1. Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, and hence became unclean and separated from God (aka he spiritually died).
1a. Likewise, when each of us sin (which inevitably happens), we become unclean and separated from God (aka we each spiritually die)
2. This creates a rift between us and God, and God's justice cannot just be waved away. It must be satisfied.
3. Jesus Christ, the perfect lamb, offered up Himself to take on this debt, cleansing it from each person that believes in Him.
4. This sacrifice enables us to be reformed, clean and without any sin, able to be one with God.

 

[Helen]

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

Yep! Good to meet you!!

 

[John Caldwell]

You're still using the fancy words packed lots of background assumptions/definitions.

I'll just continue on with explaining my view here. I tried to echo your layout in post 302, but it didn't succeed,

0. Spiritual death is defined as being separated from God because a person (due to sin) a person is unclean and no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.
1. Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, and hence became unclean and separated from God (aka he spiritually died).
1a. Likewise, when each of us sin (which inevitably happens), we become unclean and separated from God (aka we each spiritually die)
2. This creates a rift between us and God, and God's justice cannot just be waved away. It must be satisfied.
3. Jesus Christ, the perfect lamb, offered up Himself to take on this debt, cleansing it from each person that believes in Him.
4. This sacrifice enables us to be reformed, clean and without any sin, able to be one with God.

I do not know that it can be helped (using words loaded with assumptions).

For example, "spiritual death" is loaded with assumptions, "justice" seems to be loaded as well (you speak of a type that must be satisfied), and even a type of "sin debt" assumes (IMHO) far too much.

It is easy to discuss things between people of the same view because they share these assumptions. I know what you are talking about (I once held Penal Substitution Theory). But I do not know that I can communicate my view into yours.

When I held Penal Substitution Theory I also did not really get the "classic views". They seemed vague and, frankly, a bit mystical or metaphysical. I read CS Lewis, NT Wright, and the ECF's but really did not give much credence to their views of atonement. It was not u til I realized my own view was wrong and I went back to Scripture that it made sense to me.

 

[Steve Owen]

But the fact is many believe the Atonement in terms of Christ being the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world (every man)

True, but they then limit it to those who believe.

 

[Steve Owen]

The ultimate disagreement is the philosophies that Penal Substitution Theory assumes.

I have very little time so my replies are going to be very brief. I am happy to expand later where requested.

Here are a few examples for illustration:

1. Divine justice is retributive justice

God's justice is first restorative and only then retributive (cf. Amos 4:6-12).

2. Sin creates a demand or debt on divine justice

'By no means clearing the guilty.'

3. The demands of divine justice must be met in order for forgiveness to be possible

Hebrews 9:6-7.

4. An innocent man can justly be punished for the sins of another instead of the guilty person.

Not so. It was necessary for God Himself in the Person of Jesus to satisfy Divine justice.

5. Actual sins must be punished to satisfy divine justice

eg. Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11; 2:1, 4, 6. Actual sins, being impersonal, cannot be punished but sinners can be and are qv.

6. Wrath must be expended for wrath to be avoided

eg. Numbers 25:11-12.

7. The wages or consequences of sin that created a demand on divine justice was a spiritual death

Genesis 2:16-17. See below.

Those philosophical conclusions are applied to Scripture in order to develop theoretical ideas such as:

1. Adam died spiritually in the Garden of Eden

A scriptural principle. Compare Genesis 1:27 with Genesis 5:3.

2. God punished Jesus in stead of punishing us

God punished our sins in Jesus instead of punishing us for our sins. 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.'

3. Salvation is the righteousness of God manifested through the Law as Christ suffered instead of us

Salvation is the free grace of God towards sinners, manifested by Christ fulfilling the law through His active and passive obedience to God.

4. The cross was an example of divine punishment.

Absolutely not! It is an example of God's justice being reconciled to His mercy. Psalm 86:10.

.5. God separated from Jesus on the Cross. No getting around Psalm 22:1 etc., but it is better to say that on the cross, between the 6th and 9th hours, Christ felt Himself utterly forsaken (Habakkuk 1:13.

6. Jesus experienced a type of "spiritual death" that the lost will experience in terms of a separation from God.

Already answered on this thread.

7. Christ suffered and died not at the hands of wicked men but at the hand of God.

No. Christ suffered and died at the hands of wicked me according to the set purpose of God. No getting around Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28.

The substance of the disagreement is that I do not believe the philosophy (the first part) correct so I do not arrive at the same conclusions (the second part).

What you do is to create a straw man and then knock it down. I'm afraid the monkey and watch cliche is very apposite.

I hope this helps clarify, Jane.

It's not Jane that needs clarifying (on this subject, anyway).

 

[John Caldwell]

True, but they then limit it to those who believe.

Some do. Some don't.

George MacDonald and C. S. Lewis were close in views. MacDonald held universalism while Lewis did not. Neither held limited atonement.

Perhaps the biggest difference is in purpose.

Those who believe Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world (all human sin) can say Christ atoned for all of man's sins as the Father now judges none but all judgment is given the Son.

Others insist that all sins are atoned for and no one is condemned for their sins. They are judged for rejecting Christ (they cannot escape the wrath to come).

Of the two I'd lean to the former.

The point is universal atonement does not necessitate universal salvation.

But I will say that if Penal Substitution Theory is true then Calvinism (and Limited Atonement) is the only consistent position.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I do not know that it can be helped (using words loaded with assumptions).

For example, "spiritual death" is loaded with assumptions, "justice" seems to be loaded as well (you speak of a type that must be satisfied), and even a type of "sin debt" assumes (IMHO) far too much.

It is easy to discuss things between people of the same view because they share these assumptions. I know what you are talking about (I once held Penal Substitution Theory). But I do not know that I can communicate my view into yours.

But is it not worth the effort to try to break ideas down so that they can be conveyed to others?

 

[John Caldwell]

But is it not worth the effort to try to break ideas down so that they can be conveyed to others?

Years ago I was concerned that our (SBC) churches were not teaching to foster belief but teaching in terms of indoctrination. I am Baptist and was back then. We all knew the doctrine of eternal security and verses to support it. But we were not taught the why, how others arrive at alternate views, and really the context of the view. I studied, changed my major to religion, and ultimately attended seminary. I concentrated on historical theology and theologicl development.

When I graduated seminary and became more active in the preaching ministry I thought it was worth the effort to break these ideas down.

Over time I have found that very few really care. Christians want to be reassured their theological systems are correct and complete. They do not want to reexamine their views in consideratiin of opposing positions.

People have too much invested in their ideas to start anew. I think those who have moved from one faith to another can identify with this. It was very difficult for me when I realized Penal Substitution Theory did not meet the criteria I held for foundational doctrines. It was enlightening, but it was also difficult.

Sometimes it is better to just leave things alone. If the only way someone can grasp the gospel through myth, perhaps the myth has to remain place.

So to answer your question, I honestly do not know anymore if it is worth breaking these ideas down.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Over time I have found that very few really care. Christians want to be reassured their theological systems are correct and complete. They do not want to reexamine their views in consideratiin of opposing positions.[

People have too much invested in their ideas to start anew. I think those who have moved from one faith to another can identify with this.

I hear you there. Such is the natural man & sinner within each of us.

Still, I have found those rare people whom do care and want to honestly understand other people's positions, even those they passionately disagree with. I would like to think of myself as one of them, though I am obviously still very flawed.

So to answer your question, I honestly do not know anymore if it is worth breaking these ideas down.

I still think it's worth the effort [/QUOTE]

 

[Steve Owen]

But I will say that if Penal Substitution Theory is true then Calvinism (and Limited Atonement) is the only consistent position

Penal Substitution is true, and John Wesley and others realized that without also realizing the truth of Definite Redemption.

 

[John Caldwell]

Penal Substitution is true, and John Wesley and others realized that without also realizing the truth of Definite Redemption.

John Wesley was a strong supporter of Penal Substitution Theory. But he was inconsistent in his theology. The logical conclusion of Penal Substitution Theory (at least when initially articulated by John Calvin) is all five points of Calvinism.

The point here is not the truthfulness of the Theory but the fact it is a theory. It is not in Scripture but relies on a presupposed philosophy of divine justice and assumptions concerning the nature of sin (it depends on ideas that are not in Scripture and are unproven in reaching its conclusions).

BTW, I started a thread as requested about what I do believe (rather than what I reject). Sorry it took this long (I have been busy). Perhaps that will help understand where we differ.

 

[reformed1689]

In Scripture you are assuming the "penalty" was a result of retributive justice for an offense, and therefore a punishment.

That's not assumed, that is spelled out. The penalty of sin is death. The PUNISHMENT of sin is death. The PUNISHMENT of sin is the wrath of God. None of that is a presupposition. The text tells us this.

But what about this one word. Why do you assume that "penalty" automatically denotes "punishment" when this is not necessary per the meaning of the actual word?

All penalties are punishments.

I do not think Penal Substitution Theory biblically solves the problem of sin, partly because it remains within the law.

Can you elaborate on this?

The point is universal atonement does not necessitate universal salvation.

It actually does, people just don't admit the theological inconsistency.

But I will say that if Penal Substitution Theory is true then Calvinism (and Limited Atonement) is the only consistent position.

Let me correct your statement: SINCE Penal Substitution is true, Limited Atonement is the only biblical position.

I realized Penal Substitution Theory did not meet the criteria I held for foundational doctrines.

Criteria that you are inconsistent in applying.

 

[reformed1689]

I argued against the idea that Christ was punished once for sins.

Yet you say he paid the penalty for our sins which is the same thing.

 

[reformed1689]

But the fact is many believe the Atonement in terms of Christ being the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world (every man) and reconciling mankind to God is not universalism. The reason is that the work has two end results - people are either "in Christ" where there is no condemnation or they are judged by Christ.

Let me rephrase, everyone believes in a limited atonement or they are either a universalist or inconsistent in their theology.