As I said before, Penal Substitution Theory teaches Christ died for the specific sins of supposedly previously chosen individuals. That is why it does not teach Universalism. I do not believe PST could exist before Limited Atonement as they are two sides of the same coin. If you strip away the idea that Christ died for the specific sins of the previously chosen elect, then you are left with Substitutionary Theory and that is a Biblical Concept. But do not conflate them!
Baptists, Penal Substitution, Original Sin
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Rebel, Feb 28, 2016.
Page 2 of 4
-
-
The reason is that I also have posted the quote you offered of several Church Fathers, and you never objected. I think that perhaps what we are calling PST is not the same. I'll use Eusebius as a quick example here, and assume he holds to PST.
Penal Substitution Theory:
1. Strongly denies the Son and Father experienced a separation on the Cross.
2. Denies Christ suffered a "spiritual death."
3. Focuses on the reconciliation of all men to God.
4. Places the Law as applicable only to the Jewish race (and only tho them that lived in their own land).
5. The Atonement is the basis of reconciliation of humanity upon which the father forgives sins.
6. The Atonement is the summoning of all men equally to share in this reconciliation.
(These teachings are from “Demonstratio Evangelica")
It is a matter of definition. Those teachings (the context of the quote you offered proving Eusebius taught Penal Substitution) stands in contract to my view of PST. I may be able to go along with your view, if it is, as you indicate, what has been taught by the ECF's. -
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
'And the Lamb of God......was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.'
The quote is rather clear, I think. That Eusebius may have contradicted himself elsewhere I do not doubt for a second. I find that the Fathers do that with some regularity, which is why they are not really sound guides to true Christian doctrine. Nor do I believe that the doctrine of P.S.A. emerged from the E.C.F.s fully formed, like Athene from the brow of Zeus. The Fathers stumbled and fell short in all sorts of ways, most notably over baptismal regeneration. -
God bless. -
God bless. -
He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sickness His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, and because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonor, which were due us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: ‘By his stripes we are healed,’ and ‘The Lord delivered him for our sins,’ with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriation our sufferings, He can say, ‘ I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.
For the words, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' which He spoke on the Cross, and which were prophetically foretold in the Psalm, what else did they mean but that like a great athlete He was matched against all these adversaries, while Almighty God ordered the contest and gave the decision? Thus He summons His Father as the overseer of what is being done, and as the adviser, like a clever Anointer, to come to Him, especially as He has no other helper, but only Him that governs the context. And so He says in prayer, "Be not thou far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no helper."...And though He says this, His farther is not too far off to hear Him, He is not removed far off, He is not separated by the smallest space, but is actually saying to Him: "While thou speakest, I will say, I am here.
Since it was impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins, and the whole race of mankind needed a living and true offering, of which the Mosaically designed propitiation was a type, and our Lord and Saviour was this Lamb of God, as it was said of Him, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world’; and again, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world’” He brings redemption also, according to Paul’s words, “Who is become wisdom to us from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption’ naturally teaches that His coming is at once the fulfilment and the contemplation of sin of those who have sinned against Him, at the same time as it is the blotting out and purification of sins, and the propitiation for the transgressions of them that believe in Him.
I have now proved that the old covenant and the law given by Moses was only applicable to the Jewish race, and only to such of them as lived in their own land.” …… “But the new covenant leads those who, through our Saviour by the grace and gift of God are raised up, to a rapid march into the kingdom promised by God. It summons all men equally to share together the good things.
And His coming shewed clearly the righteousness of God, who reckoned the whole of mankind worthy of the calling of God. Such was not the Mosaic dispensation, which was given to the Jews only: wherefore having appeared for a time it has passed away. But the righteous proclaimed by our Saviour is fitly called eternal righteousness. (“Demonstratio Evangelica”).
My argument is with those who believe that Christ took the punishment of our individual sins in our place. I agree with your view, which you call Penal Substitution theory, as expressed through Eusebius. We simply disagreed on what constituted Penal Substitution Theory. -
I think that you are not holding to any theory, but are speaking of substitution in general. If so, then I would agree with you. There are centuries of believers who held to the fact that Christ died on the cross to save them, bore their sins, turned aside God's wrath due them for their sin, and freed them from the bondage of sin and death as enough to sustain their faith. They looked to Christ as a mediator when they sinned and held a steadfast faith that being reconciled to God through the death of his Son that they would be saved by his life. I wish we had more people like that today. -
And while on the subject, every Christian, with the exception of a few Universalists, believes in Limited Atonement.
Do you posters who think you deny Limited Atonement believe the Devil will be saved? Or His demons? If not then don't you limit the Atonement to humans only? Just as those of us who accept Limited Atonement limit it to believers only? Remember, Limited Atonement does not teach that the Atonement was limited in its ability to save, but rather, limited only in its application. It is sufficient for all, efficient only for believers. :) -
Sent from my TARDIS -
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
It's just my view, but, it seems to me that Atonement was accomplished by the death of Christ, and did not require anything beyond a literal standing in our place. I would agree that individual sins are not in view, because men receive the same punishment from a general perspective, meaning, while we do see differing degrees of punishment, in regards to dying for sin that is the punishment in view. This would be contrasted with the thought that "Eternal separation is worse for some (i.e., Hitler, Stalin, et cetera)," or, has hotter locations than others. The punishment for sin is death, which ultimately speaks of separation.
We could compare this with salvation, in regards to rewards: while we are told reward will vary, that does not change the fact that salvation is identical for all. It is received the same way, and has the same result, which is, a removal of that separation men are born into.
So again, what is the punishment? And how does that relate to Atonement? I suggest it is that simple, Christ died in our stead, and varying degree of culpability isn't really a factor relevant to Atonement.
God bless. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
My argument is that Christ, the sinless One, took our sins upon Himself and bore the penalty of them. What penalty was that? It was the penalty that God prescribed. He was beaten scourged, nailed to the tree, treated as one who was accursed. He was, for the three hours of darkness, deserted by the Father (I don't see how you can interpret Psalm 22:1-18 any other way) and surrounded by figures taunting Him and goading Him. That was His hell. The Father is propitiated, and Christ, after the suffering of His soul, is satisfied (Isaiah 53:11), for He has borne the sins of many, and redeemed a vast crowd that no man can number, from hell.
I've covered this at length in other threads. If you need more, I will look them out and cut and paste them here. -
;)
Sound irreverent? Perhaps, but the fact is that David, when not in the throes of the consequences of sin (and it matters little if we ascribe his sin, the sin of others, or sin as a general factor in the generation of torment, trial, and tragedy)...
...understood that God would never forsake Him:
Turn the page, and we read...
Psalm 23:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Two entirely perspectives, right? Either the Lord is with him, though he walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, or...He has forsaken David.
So we ask the question...was David forsaken at that time? Is that the case, or, is this simply a perspective of David in a time of great trial.
Secondly, we look at the Messianic nature of David's writing, which can equally said to have application to Christ and David and solely to Christ.
When we look at David's statement as applied to David, we look on from a perspective of having the...rest of the story.
Those looking on Christ and hearing these words, not only did they not have the rest of the story, but, they miss it completely...
Matthew 27:46-48
King James Version (KJV)
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
We, though, do not stop at David's crying out "Why hast thou forsaken me," but, we continue on in the Psalm and see, in full revealed understanding in retrospect, that no, David was not forsaken, and yes, everything in the Psalm has to be considered.
While the trauma of both David and the Lord are great, I think it an error to take a view that the Father was separated from the Son at this time. Rather, the Lord is making a pointed correlation to the Psalm.
If we say Father and Son were separated, I think we are forced to conclude that Christ ceased being God at that time, and this is an impossibility. At no time did God cease being God. This suggests that in that time Christ was but a man, which view we usually reject, do we not?
It was finished upon the Cross, and it was accomplished by His death.
Communion is a reference to His death, that is the means by which He saves us. While the sufferings He endured are not neglected nor dismissed, had He been beaten yet not died, then sin would not have been atoned for. They did not beat the sacrifices of the Law, they put them to death. Those animals died in the stead of the sinner (the comer thereunto), that was the provision of the Law (and even prior to the Law, i.e., Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job).
So, in my view, think we have to maintain that pattern/figure in regards to Christ. He did not bleed so we could be forgiven our sins, He did not suffer flogging so we could receive remission, He did not carry a Cross that we might be redeemed.
He died in our stead. The death was necessary.
God bless. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I'm afraid I've run out of steam today; I'm all posted out.
May I just refer you to a transcription of a sermon I gave a while ago on this subject?
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-cry-of-desolation/ -
I've said before, and will again, that elements of substitution and due punishment are present in most, if not all, theories. That does not mean those other theories affirm PST.
As an illustration only : John Owen clearly believes that through the Atonement we are freed from the bondage of sin. Therefore he held to Christus Victor theory.....only with some error and confusion mixed in.
I am saying, brother, that when we dissect a man's theory or theology, hold on to one part while dismissing the whole, then we do disservice to the brother's position. I would not do that to you, intentionally, and we shouldn't do it to others.
I believe you will find your strongest argument from Scripture, not antiquity.
Sent from my TARDIS -
-
Barnabas (A.D. 70): “[Christ speaking] I see that I shall thus offer My flesh for the sins of the new people.”
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): “He endured the sufferings for those men whose souls are [actually] purified from all iniquity…As Jacob served Laban for the cattle that were spotted, and of carious forms, so Christ served even to the cross for men of every kind, of many and various shapes, procuring them by His blood and the mystery of the cross.”
Irenaeus (A.D. 180): “He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men…Jesus is the Savior of them that believe; but the Lord of them that believe not. Wherefore, Christ is introduced in the gospel weary…promising to give His life a ransom, in the room of, many.”
Tertullian (A.D. 200): “Christ died for the salvation of His people…for the church.”
Cyprian (A.D. 250): “All the sheep which Christ hath sought up by His blood and sufferings are saved…Whosoever shall be found in the blood, and with the mark of Christ shall only escape…He redeemed the believers with the price of His own blood…Let him be afraid to die who is not reckoned to have any part in the cross and sufferings of Christ.”
Lactantius (A.D. 320): “He was to suffer and be slain for the salvation of many people…who having suffered death for us, hath made us heirs of the everlasting kingdom, having abdicated and disinherited the people of the Jews…He stretched out His hands in the passion and measured the world, that He might at the very time show that a large people, gathered out of all languages and tribes, should come under His wings, and receive the most great and sublime sign.”
Eusebius (A.D. 330): “To what ‘us’ does he refer, unless to them that beleive in Him? For to them that do not believe in Him, He is the author of their fire and burning. The cause of Christ’s coming is the redemption of those that were to be saved by Him.”
Julius (A.D. 350): “The Son of God, by the pouring out of His precious blood, redeemed His set apart ones; they are delivered by the blood of Christ.”
Hilarion (A.D. 363): “He shall remain in the sight of God forever, having already taken all whom He hath redeemed to be kings of heaven, and co-heirs of eternity, delivering them as the kingdom of God to the Father.”
Ambrose (A.D. 380): “Before the foundation of the world, it was God’s will that Christ should suffer for our salvation…Can He damn thee, whom He hath redeemed from death, for whom He offered Himself, whose life He knows is the reward of His own death?”
Pacian (A.D. 380): “Much more, He will not allow him that is redeemed to be destroyed, nor will He cast away those whom He has redeemed with a great price.”
Epiphanius (A.D. 390): “If you are redeemed…If therefore ye are bought with blood, thou are not the number of them who were bought with blood, O Manes, because thou deniest the blood…He gave His life for His own sheep.”
Jerome (A.D. 390): “Christ is sacrificed for the salvation of believers…Not all are redeemed, for not all shall be saved, but the remnant…All those who are redeemed and delivered by Thy blood return to Zion, which Thou hast prepared for Thyself by Thine own blood…Christ came to redeem Zion with His blood. But lest we should think that all are Zion or every one is Zion is truly redeemed of the Lord, who are redeemed by the blood of Christ form the Church…He did not give His life for every man, but for many, that is, for those who would believe.”
Page 2 of 4