Featured Atonement

I think I should clarify what I wrote above to avoid confusion.

I have never before come across a 'Theory' of Penal Substitution being compared to a 'Doctrine' of Penal Substitution.
I have read several books, mostly Systematics, where various 'theories' of the Atonement are compared, of which P.S. might be described as one of them.

 

Is this your understanding of the primary focus of Penal Substitutionary Atonement?? Sin is the legal grounds for punishment, but sin is something found in, and promoted by sinners and it is sinners that are the legal object of punishment. Christ on the cross stood in the legal position for the punishment of our sins simply because he took upon himself our sins legally - made to be sin personified with regard to legal consequences.

 

You answer this by listing uninspired men without a single reference to the inspired men of scripture! I am not suprised, because this seems to be you MO.

Sin is defined in scripture (1 Jn. 3:6; Rom. 3:23) with appropriate words. The Pharisees restricted sin to external words and actions whereas Christ demanded that sin described a spiritual condition or an internal condition so that he could speak of sinners as "being evil" rather than just committing evil.

Significantly, the Bible only defines sin in direct connection with Law (1 Jn. 3:6; Rom. 2:11-15; 3:19-23; Mt. 15:23-25). God's law reveals the principles that characterize the holiness of God and that is why sin "comes short of the glory of God" as God's holiness is the beginning point when dealing with the atonement.

However, you seem to be heavily influenced by Wright and his perverse view of justification and his "community" false doctrine. Wright is wrong, thoroughly and completely wrong as his view is "another gospel" as he fails comprehend that the Jews did view the Law of God as a means for ultimate moral justification.

 

Jon, I have read Packer's 1973 lecture on Penal Substitution. I have also read Calvin, Pink, Sproul, MacArthur et al. From what I have read there is no bifurcation in the penal substitution position. There may be points of disagreement but there is not a Penal Substitution and a Penal Substitution Theory. Both are theories in the etymological sense of the word.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

For example? Are you confusing sin with its consequences in creation?

 

Do you make a distinction between sin and the consequences of sin when you make the above statement?

 

Creation was "cursed" due to man's sin (Gen. 3:14,17-19; Rom. 8:20). The curse was the consequence of a moral act of disobedience. I hope you are not confusing the cause with the consequence and claiming the consequence is proof that "sin is more systemic than a purely moral view would alllow" because if that is the grounds for your statement then your statement is built upon failure to discern between and thus a confusion between cause and effects. If so, then your belief is founded on error instead of truth and sin is purely a moral issue.

 

I approach the atonement with the foundation that redemption is located "in Christ":

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" Col 1:14

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" Rom 3:24

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;" Eph 1:7

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:" 1 Cor 1:30

There is no reconciliation with God outside of Christ. This is true whether you're speaking of soul, body, creation, they're all reconciled to God "in Christ".

"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Col 1:19-20

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Rom 8:22-23

Christ drank the full cup of God's wrath, and all fullness dwells in Him. Each individual that is in Christ is personally represented by Him as a substitute.

 

Not really. The term "Penal Substitution" is ubiquitous. Packer made this statement in his 1973 lecture on Penal Substitution:

"The task which I have set myself in this lecture is to focus and explicate a belief which, by and large, is a distinguishing mark of the word-wide evangelical fraternity: namely, the belief that the cross had the character of penal substitution, and that it was in virtue of this fact that it brought salvation to mankind."

He then goes on to define penal and substitution. In his lecture, he allows for the fact that even within the Penal Substitution community there are problems that must be accounted for.

"And with that, it alerts us to the fact that the presence in our theology of unsolved problems is not necessarily a reflection on the truth or adequacy of our thoughts. Inadequate and untrue theories do of course exist: a theory (the word comes from theorein, to look at) is a ‘view’ or ‘sight’ of something, and if one’s way of looking at it is perverse one’s view will be distorted, and distorted views are always full of problems. But the mere presence of problems is not enough to prove a view distorted; true views in theology also entail unsolved problems, while any view that was problem-free would certainly be rationalistic and reductionist. True theories in theology, whether about the atonement or anything else, will suspect themselves of being inadequate to their object throughout. One thing that Christians know by faith is that they know only in part." (emphasis mine)

The fact is that there are not two atonement views known as Penal Substitution and Penal Substitution Theory. I concede that there are differences within the penal substitution community but they do not bifurcate penal substitution itself. It is fair game to point out the intramural debates within any theological construct. There certainly is no shortage of them in the Christus Victor or Ransom views.

I concur that Penal Substitution is a product of the Reformation but only because the Atonement, in general, was not adequately vetted during the early Patristic age. In subsequent posts, I want to make the case that scripture argues for penal substitution and not the other way around.

 

I will do that.

 

Great. That makes things easier to discuss.

 

I have various books by Packer; which one are you referencing? Regardless, from your description he does not appear to be comparing a 'theory' of P.S. with a 'doctrine.'

the Grand-daddy of all these folk was C.H. Dodd who wrote commentaries on Romans and 1 John, denying the traditional rendering of 'propitiation' for the hilasterion' word group. His views affected the translation of the New English Bible and the Revised Standard Version, but were roundly defeated by men like Leon Morris and Roger Nicole (and later by Martyn Lloyd-Jones).

I understand what you're saying (I think), but the implication of your view is that the truth is not discoverable so we might as well pack up and go home. The Bible tells us differently. Ephesians 4:11-16. As someone or other said, "The truth is out there." God is not the Author of confusion.