Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

[John Caldwell]

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.

All penalties are punishments.

Can you elaborate on this?


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

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


Criteria that you are inconsistent in applying.

Sorry David, but I have to remain faithful to Scripture even in my own theories. The indoctrinated hold believes that they have no right to hold because they are not really theirs. You, for example, are indoctrinated. The evidence is that:

1. You dismiss other interpretations of Scripture as rejections of Scripture itself.
2. You claim it is not relevant that those sources provide as holding the Theory have never expressed that they held your theory
3. You believe it is of no consequence that the passages you provide to support your theory do not actually express your theory
4. You claim that "good theology" is not based on the biblical text itself but what people find implied within the text.

I am a Baptist so I reject your hermeneutic method. I have studied ancient literature (secular and religious prior to seminary) in college so I reject your idea of blending our worldview into theirs. I hold the "classic view" of Atonement so I reject Penal Substitution Theory. I am a conservative Christian so I reject your religion.

If you want to talk about what I do believe you have that forum available to you. As far as what I reject, I reject your interpretation of Scripture because I reject the lens through which you view Scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

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

This is also false (and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with Christian theology).

If the Cross is viewed as God reconciling mankind to Himself (not counting man's sins against them) and this is viewed as having two results - some saved and "in Christ", others lost and will be judged by Christ, then the atonement in terms of the Father offering the Son is a universal atonement.

Under the "classic view" - all Christians believe in Universal Atonement except those who deny that all judgment has been given to Christ.

Under Penal Substitution Theory all believe in Limited Atonement except those who deny universal salvation.

I know you have studied your theories and tradition, David. We all should know our beliefs as well. BUT you cannot speak to Christian Theology as a whole without understanding Christian Theology in general.

That is the value of this type of forum. Instead of making statements that depend on projecting your assumptions on other people you have the opportunity to understand what other people believe. You waste that opportunity.

 

[reformed1689]

This is also false (and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with Christian theology).

If the Cross is viewed as God reconciling mankind to Himself (not counting man's sins against them) and this is viewed as having two results - some saved and "in Christ", others lost and will be judged by Christ, then the atonement in terms of the Father offering the Son is a universal atonement.

Under the "classic view" - all Christians believe in Universal Atonement except those who deny that all judgment has been given to Christ.

Under Penal Substitution Theory all believe in Limited Atonement except those who deny universal salvation.

I know you have studied your theories and tradition, David. We all should know our beliefs as well. BUT you cannot speak to Christian Theology as a whole without understanding Christian Theology in general.

That is the value of this type of forum. Instead of making statements that depend on projecting your assumptions on other people you have the opportunity to understand what other people believe. You waste that opportunity.

All I need to understand is Scripture. That being said, you assume I am projecting assumptions. I know the theories, I know the theology, and I know it is wrong. It is inconsistent.

 

[reformed1689]

Sorry David, but I have to remain faithful to Scripture even in my own theories.

The start doing that please.

1. You dismiss other interpretations of Scripture as rejections of Scripture itself.

A point you have never answered. If someone denies the deity of Christ in John 1, do they reject Scripture? Why will you not answer this?

2. You claim it is not relevant that those sources provide as holding the Theory have never expressed that they held your theory

Only because you are looking for what we label the theology today. That's just stupid John.

3. You believe it is of no consequence that the passages you provide to support your theory do not actually express your theory

You have yet to prove that one.

4. You claim that "good theology" is not based on the biblical text itself but what people find implied within the text.

This is a lie. I have never said that.

I am a Baptist so I reject your hermeneutic method.

What a stupid comment. You don't reject my hermeneutic method, you reject what you claim is my method.

I have studied ancient literature (secular and religious prior to seminary) in college so I reject your idea of blending our worldview into theirs.

What are you talking about?

I am a conservative Christian so I reject your religion.

I am a conservative Christian. You are back with your superiority complex of your vain philosophy.

As far as what I reject, I reject your interpretation of Scripture because I reject the lens through which you view Scripture.

Actually you just reject the plain meaning of Scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

All I need to understand is Scripture.

I agree.

 

[John Caldwell]

The start doing that please.

A point you have never answered. If someone denies the deity of Christ in John 1, do they reject Scripture? Why will you not answer this?

Only because you are looking for what we label the theology today. That's just stupid John.

You have yet to prove that one.

This is a lie. I have never said that.

What a stupid comment. You don't reject my hermeneutic method, you reject what you claim is my method.

What are you talking about?

I am a conservative Christian. You are back with your superiority complex of your vain philosophy.

Actually you just reject the plain meaning of Scripture.

What I am saying is that I do not hold the same views as you hold in terms of interpretation methods, the place of the Biblical text, priority of doctrine (based on biblical evidence), and religious philosophy.

That is a statement of fact, not an insult. This is the opposite of a superiority complex (I believe we have to stick with Scripture and that good theology relies on the written Word of God). That said, I do believe my basis is superior because it is Scripture.

You have not provided even one verse I reject, David. The source of contention I have towards you is the fact that you make baseless claims about me (and others who share my position) but do not have the courage to back up your claims. We (those of us who reject your theory) affirm the same passages but reject your theory of those passages. That this seems just outside of your grasp illustrates the depravity of your "method" of interpretation. You cannot seem to understand that other people have not seen the need to use your lens to interpret Scripture.

If you are man (or woman) enough to provide a verse that I have rejected (rather than rejecting your interpretation of the verse) then state it. If you are man (or woman) enough to deal with my actual beliefs (instead of what parts of your theory I reject) then have at it (on the appropriate site).

This is what I believe and why we can never come to a mutual understanding:

What I believe about the Atonement

 

[reformed1689]

What I am saying is that I do not hold the same views as you hold in terms of interpretation methods, the place of the Biblical text, priority of doctrine (based on biblical evidence), and religious philosophy.

You are claiming I use interpretation methods that I don't actually use.

That is a statement of fact, not an insult. This is the opposite of a superiority complex (I believe we have to stick with Scripture and that good theology relies on the written Word of God). That said, I do believe my basis is superior because it is Scripture.

Your superiority complex is that you implied that I was not a conservative Christian because I don't follow your philosophy.

You have not provided even one verse I reject, David. The source of contention I have towards you is the fact that you make baseless claims about me (and others who share my position) but do not have the courage to back up your claims. We (those of us who reject your theory) affirm the same passages but reject your theory of those passages. That this seems just outside of your grasp illustrates the depravity of your "method" of interpretation. You cannot seem to understand that other people have not seen the need to use your lens to interpret Scripture.

Again, just saying you affirm a verse means nothing. And AGAIN you dodged my question. I know why you are dodging it because it blows your point up. But here it goes.

If someone denies the Deity of Christ in John 1 are they rejecting Scripture?

If you are man (or woman) enough to provide a verse that I have rejected (rather than rejecting your interpretation of the verse) then state it. If you are man (or woman) enough to deal with my actual beliefs (instead of what parts of your theory I reject) then have at it (on the appropriate site).

See above.

 

[John Caldwell]

You are claiming I use interpretation methods that I don't actually use.

Your superiority complex is that you implied that I was not a conservative Christian because I don't follow your philosophy.

Again, just saying you affirm a verse means nothing. And AGAIN you dodged my question. I know why you are dodging it because it blows your point up. But here it goes.

If someone denies the Deity of Christ in John 1 are they rejecting Scripture?


See above.

You have repeated claimed that denying Jesus' divinity was not denying what was explicitly stated in the text of Scripture but denying what Scripture teaches. I have repeatedly called this claim ignorant and a product of biblical illiteracy.

If someone denies the Word was with God and was God then yes, they would be denying John 1. If they deny Jesus and the Father are One then they are denying John 10:30.

I do not to sound mean but you keep on making claims you cannot back up. Are you a coward? A liar? One who slanders and falsely accuses the breathern? If not then grow a backbone and tell me what verse we (those of us who reject your theory) actually reject (the verse - not your interpretation of the verse).

You know what I believe because I provided it at the request if @Steve Owen.

 

[marks]

EXACTLY this is penal substitution. He paid the penalty for our sin in our place.

Hi David,

I think the reasoning is that while the son of Adam owed a debt of sin, the son of God does not. When I was reborn, I became a new creation, without any record of sin. I start over. But now with the Holy Spirit. And a new creation.

So that the death of Jesus was not so much to pay my penalty in my place, but so that I could have the opportunity to become someone new who doesn't owe a penalty at all.

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

If someone denies the Deity of Christ in John 1 are they rejecting Scripture?

I think if someone denies that Jesus is God, they have denied and fought against all scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

As an exam of poor hermeneutics:

@David Taylor changes "wages" to "penalty" (which I think is fair) and says the "penalty" of sin is death. But then takes it farther and changes "penalty" to "punishment".

This is called eisegesis. A punishment accesses a penalty but only in the retributive form. ("Penalty" does not mean "punishment" as both imposed and unimposed consequences are also penalties).

David is wrong to alter God's Word to meet his theory. It is a sin.

 

[Steve Owen]

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.

You are correct about Wesley's inconsistency, but that is beside the point. Here is a professed Arminian who held strongly (and rightly) to the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. But Calvin was certainly not the originator of the doctrine, though he was the one who set it out in the greatest detail. Leaving aside the ECFs, Martin Luther (in his commentary on Galatians) and William Tyndale (in 'A Pathway into the Holy Scriptures' and probably elsewhere), also upheld the doctrine, when Calvin was still in short trousers. I have just purchased for myself the complete works of Tyndale from Banner of Truth and I shall be underlining the teaching of PSA as it crops up. I also came across a quote from Bernard of Clairvaux, contradicting the Pelagianism of Peter Abelard, which clearly teaches PSA. Available on request.

And the Doctrine is entirely Biblical; it is found all over the Bible as I have shown several times.

I will have a look at your new thread shortly. Thank you for doing what you said you would.

 

[John Caldwell]

I think if someone denies that Jesus is God, they have denied and fought against all scripture.

@David Taylor has been arguing for a long time that the Trinity is not really stated in Scripture but is taught by Scripture. This is how he has tried to support "implied truth" as Scripture itself.

 

[Steve Owen]

As an exam of poor hermeneutics:

@David Taylor changes "wages" to "penalty" (which I think is fair) and says the "penalty" of sin is death. But then takes it farther and changes "penalty" to "punishment".

This is called eisegesis. A punishment accesses a penalty but only in the retributive form. ("Penalty" does not mean "punishment" as both imposed and unimposed consequences are also penalties).

David is wrong to alter God's Word to meet his theory. It is a sin.

Pathetic! The Death Penalty, when it existed in Britain, was also called Capital Punishment.

 

[John Caldwell]

You are correct about Wesley's inconsistency, but that is beside the point. Here is a professed Arminian who held strongly (and rightly) to the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. But Calvin was certainly not the originator of the doctrine, though he was the one who set it out in the greatest detail. Leaving aside the ECFs, Martin Luther (in his commentary on Galatians) and William Tyndale (in 'A Pathway into the Holy Scriptures' and probably elsewhere), also upheld the doctrine, when Calvin was still in short trousers. I have just purchased for myself the complete works of Tyndale from Banner of Truth and I shall be underlining the teaching of PSA as it crops up. I also came across a quote from Bernard of Clairvaux, contradicting the Pelagianism of Peter Abelard, which clearly teaches PSA. Available on request.

And the Doctrine is entirely Biblical; it is found all over the Bible as I have shown several times.

I will have a look at your new thread shortly. Thank you for doing what you said you would.

Thanks.

Had Wesley offered a view that includes Penal Substitution Theory without being inconsistent then I could have seen your point.

I think his actual view of how Penal Substitution Theory pays our debt differs from the Calvinist view (so perhaps saying he was inconsistent is pushing it a bit).

 

[Steve Owen]

Had Wesley offered a view that includes Penal Substitution Theory without being inconsistent then I could have seen your point.

Has it occurred to you that Wesley might have thought that you are inconsistent?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

A punishment accesses a penalty but only in the retributive form. ("Penalty" does not mean "punishment" as both imposed and unimposed consequences are also penalties).

Trying to grasp this part. Can't quite grab it.

 

[John Caldwell]

Has it occurred to you that Wesley might have thought that you are inconsistent?

I certainly hope he would have thought both of us are inconsistent.

 

[John Caldwell]

Trying to grasp this part. Can't quite grab it.

Punishment is imposing a penalty in retribution for an offensive.

A penalty is something suffered (it comes from a word meaning "pain"). It can be the result of a punishment but it can also simply be a consequence of an action (not necessarily imposed).

@David Taylor is changing the actual word used to prevent other views (like the classic view, moral influence, Christus Victor, recipitulation, etc.). Those little changes have consequences to the actual text of Scripture.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

@David Taylor has been arguing for a long time that the Trinity is not really stated in Scripture but is taught by Scripture. This is how he has tried to support "implied truth" as Scripture itself.

Hmm...I have a problem with the trinity theory. My mind melds God and the Holy Spirit. The most I can grasp is a binity. God IS Spirit. I don't think He is one spirit and the Holy Spirit is another Spirit. So my brain sees God as the Holy Spirit. And honestly, not even sure I see a binity. Because Jesus IS God.
As long as a man knows Jesus is God, I don't care to fuss over what his mind can grasp past: Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.