BTW I am not straying from the subject but actually challenging the very historical basis you are basing this study upon. You are making and repeating the unsustainable claim that no other positions were known during this period, when in fact, honesty can only say the Roman Catholic monks selected and preserved no other views between the fourth and sixteenth centuries.
Stop making your absolute statement, and I will stop challenging it.
Debt vs. Penal Substitution
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Brooksntea, Nov 13, 2018.
Page 5 of 6
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
My claim is that there is no evidence that anyone prior to the eleventh century held ideas regarding the necessity of God's prosecuting divine retributive justice, by punishing the sins of men, as a condition of his forgiveness. I also contend that there is no evidence that the notion God could not gratuitously forgive was ever assumed in ANY theory of atonement during approximately the first millenia of the Church and until Anselm's Cur Deus Homo.
Prove me wrong (evidence, not conspiracy). -
I chose a lyric because it came to my mind. I am sorry that you took it as an insult because that was not my intent. Does that mean I was in the wrong for posting the lyric? No, of course not. The moral "wrongness" would be if I had posted in order to offend you. This was not the case. Does that make my apology less sincere? Obviously not. I could have been more clear (perhaps by referencing the lyric, perhaps by including more of it, or perhaps by addressing the post differently). But what was said was said, and my apology is that YOU found it offensive (not that I intended it that way, or that it is wrong to post a Pink Floyd lyric on the Baptist Board).
If I had intentionally offended you, then perhaps I could promise to try and not do it again. But since this was an innocent comment (one I'm surprised offended you, and even more surprised we're still discussing) I cannot guarantee it will not happen again. If that lyric offended you then it seems to me that you are very easily offended. I will probably say something in the future that you will find offensive and we will probably be here again. There is nothing either of us can do to prevent it.
But let's take intent out of the picture for a minute (as you suggest). Why did you think that referring to someone as "Sunshine" is offensive? -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
What I am suggesting is along the same lines as claiming no man prior to the twentieth century stood on the moon....and you saying the Catholics destroyed all records of first century Jewish moon landings. -
-
Upon reading through 4 pages of the discussion I am compelled to remind readers of the following:
1) without the shed blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.
2) our Lord Jesus did not shed all his blood upon the cross.
Forensic science of Roman crucifixion shows that the method was meant to be torturous but not as bloody as one might expect. Rather, the method was meant to prolong the life of the tortured as much as possible that the suffering present to the populace some measure of meaningful restitution for wrongs perpetrated upon it by the one crucified.
3) there is a basic mistake when the work of shedding of blood is interchanged with the work of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.
4) penal substitution theory is in fact a theory, not a doctrine.
No one argues that or Lord Jesus suffered meaningfully and with purpose under the leading of the Father.
What is not found in Scripture is that suffering was the extinguishing of God’s wrath. (John 6). Such is not found in OT type, prophecy, nor statements by the Apostles and Other writers of the NT. Rather such placement of wrath is the product of RCC teaching which compels them toward such things as last rites, penitence, purgatory ...
Christ shed His blood.
Christ was crucified as common death deserving criminals were dispatched under Roman law for non-citizens. Roman citizen were not crucified but were quickly dispatched.
The tree was not new and the tomb borrowed.
What was happening in heaven at the very time of crucifixion?
Friends, it wasn’t wrath! It was victory! Revelation 5.
-
If I understand this thread, and the question it poses, correctly:
I have heard, even from friends, that regarding Christ's death on the cross, that He took the believer's place.
I cannot find that idea or statement in all of Scripture.
If this is what is referred to as "Penal Substitution", would someone please show me, if it does indeed exist?
I'll need book, chapter and verse.
Otherwise, I see Christ's death and His blood as having paid our sin debt to God the Father ( Isaiah 53:4-12, Romans 8:3, 2 Corinthians 5:21 ) , and redeeming us from His wrath ( Romans 5:9, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 ).
With due regard to those who are of the other persuasion, "propitiation" means "appeasement", not "stand-in".
Jesus appeased the wrath of God for us, being made sin for us.
We could have never appeased God's wrath, therefore Jesus did not "stand-in" for us.
He did not take our punishment ( to suffer eternity in Hell forever )...
The Lord took our sins upon Himself and suffered the shame of dying on the tree; He did not die in our place on the cross.
To me, that is why the Father turned His back on Him while he was on the cross;
Because Christ became sin for us.
...and God hates sin.
Jesus was bruised for our iniquities, because He was made, in the eyes of God, our iniquity.
If He would have taken our punishment, then He would be in Hell right now.
He would have remained dead...and He didn't.
He would have never have stated that it was finished.
But for a perfect lamb, spotless and without blemish, the sacrifice for sins is once, for all.
Appeasement, my friends...not penal substitution.
I happen to think that "Penal Substitution" is a nice thought that may seem right, but it is not exactly according to Scripture.
Respectfully, this is all I will contribute to this thread.
I wish you all well.:) -
PUTTING ON ADMINISTRATOR HAT.
There is a grammatical device in the English language known as a "quotation mark" that is used to indicate when one is quoting another. No such "quotation marks" are evident in the statement.
When this subject was brought up again I stated my opinion with the admonition "Please! Not again." That concern has quickly manifested into exactly the same type of double-speak and theological claptrap as the earlier thread.
Time to end it. Now.
REMOVES ADMINISTRATOR HAT. -
Yes, in hind site I should have referenced the lyric...but that would have been silly because I was intentionally tossing it in the mix as a vague and unnecessary reference (something you know I do). It's a character flaw, I know. Imagine how my wife feels having been married to me for 30 years. :(
Is there a derogatory meaning to "sunshine" that I am missing? If so, then please consider my apology extended to the board and let me know. If not, then perhaps you are inferring a motive that does not exist.
Thank you. :) -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Both Abelard and Anselm were medieval Roman Catholics. I have quotations supporting Penal Substitution up until 'pope' Gregory around 600AD. After that sacramentalism seems to have set in, along with a flight from the Bible. I know very little about Abelard except that he committed fornication with a young lady less than half his age called Heloise. Anselm's book, Cur deus homo? is the first book that tries to delve in detail into the atonement, but as your quotation observes, it is based more on philosophy or 'scholastic theology' rather than the Bible.
Anselm's book does not support Penal Substitution, although it draws somewhat close. In a few words, he says that the Lord Jesus offered satisfaction to God for His outraged honour and majesty, affronted by human sin. The doctrine of Penal Substitution teaches that Christ on the cross gave satisfaction to God's justice. The Bible teaches very clearly that God cannot 'just forgive sin' as has been suggested on this thread. 'He who justifies the wicked, and He who condemns the just; both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD' (Proverbs 17:15; c.f. also Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1). Clearly God cannot be an abomination to Himself; He must punish sin, but in His amazing grace and mercy, He has given Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Anselm never got as far as that, and Abelard SFAIK came nowhere near it. -
I think that we have to keep in mind that our way of viewing things (how we view justice) may not be how it was viewed in the eleventh century. As we transition into the late middle age we can see developing and competing philosophies.
During the so called dark age (the first part of this period) it was accepted that God could simply forgive because He is God. Our sense of justice (in a secular sense) relies more on Aquinas than Scripture. We need to be careful not to read this back into history.
Anselm departed from Abelard and, as history would show, Anselm's ideas of justice would prevail. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I think the OP is looking at the teachings of Anselm and Abelard, and measuring their influences. From that point, I think the exploration important (even vital). We have to learn from history not only not to repeat our mistakes but also to know our own presuppositions.
But...at least you didn't say "sunshine" :p -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Try not to get frustrated with me, friend Martin...I was only typing it out for all to see, why I believe the way I do.
For those that don't, I was simply telling them why. ;)
Peace to you, good sir.:Smile -
-
For example: “God cannot look upon sin” is often used to justify the thinking that God “turned his back on Christ” which is impossible considering the trinity. This was actually the Jews rebuke the prophet’s statement concerning God using a heathen people to conquer them.
In part this is the case of your use of 1 Peter 2 which states in context:
21For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; 23and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.25For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
Leaving out the purpose of the suffering and the importance to the conduct of the believer places the quote out of balance with other verses that state that shed blood both the actual blood and the furniture was what brought forgiveness.
The “bearing our sins in His body” never violated the sanctity and sanctification of our Lord. He “committed no sin...”.
Page 5 of 6