Featured Penal Substitution & the ECFs

I think "atonement" itself can imply the concept punishment or wrath.

My entire point, however, is that Scripture itself does not dictate the meaning God punished Jesus to clear our "sin debt". Throughout history people (right or wrongly) believed that we were purchased with the blood of Christ as He bore our sins on the cross without sharing the idea of God punishing Jesus to clear our sin debt.

We cannot assume the ECFs held Penal Substitution Theory simply because they believe Scripture (as they interpreted it differently).

You and I can unite in the affirmation of every passage stated here. We can unite in Christ. But we cannot claim the same understanding in terms of theories of Atonement. Just because I affirm the biblical truths the Theory places out front does not mean I affirm its underlying philosophies.

 

Yes. We can agree around Revelation 6:17 (and truthfully many other passages as well).

Also, we can gather around Roman's 5:9 "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God"

So we may disagree as to whether God punished Christ to satisfy justice by paying our "sin debt", but we can agree on what Scripture actually says. We are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. And that is more than enough to remain United in Him even as we disagree on human reasoning as these theories are formed.

 

@Martin Marprelate ,

Perhaps this is where I should have started (maybe things would have been clearer between the two of us).

I believe that Christ bore our sins, was "made sin for us". I believe we have been justified by the blood of Christ - that we will be saved by Him from the wrath of God.

I believe that our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (that the Law is a witness of God's righteousness). I believe that we are justified by God's grace through Christ, Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood as a demonstration of His righteousness that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. I believe Christ borne our griefs And carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities and chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

I believe that for our sake He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. I believe Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

I believe we were dead in our trespasses and God made us alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. I believe that God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I believe that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.

I also believe that the death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice.

I believe that the Father wished Christ, for mankind, to take upon Himself the curses of us all knowing that, after He had been crucified, He would raise Him up. The Father caused Christ to suffer these things on our behalf. And Christ willfully submitted His will to the will of the Father.

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

 

Thank you, but you can just call me "Jon". I don't insist people use my title on the BB.

 

God set forth Christ - His Son - as a propitiation by His blood. He is the propitiation for our sins and we have been forgiven - the debt that stood against us has been cancelled - through Christ's work If you believed I thought otherwise then you have my apology for my lack of clarity.

Based on my beliefs (stated for @Martin Marprelate in post 46):

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

Please be specific- provide the Scripture or philosophy you believe lacking - or why you think I affirm the Theory.

 

Please be specific -

Are you saying there is a philosophy that I must also believe in order for all I have stated (in my last post to @Martin Marprelate ) to be considered penal substitution or is there a verse of Scripture you believe I have overlooked?

Also, if this is true of people today then is it not also true of those who have gone before? Or do you believe in progressive revelation and subjective truth?

 

But that is not the question, brother. I'm sure that within each theory people saw things differently.

@Martin Marprelate started this thread and has "evidenced" the ECF's belief in Penal Substitution Theory. Yet the ECF's also had different views as well (Recipitulation, Origen's Ransom Theory).


So I will ask again:

Based on my beliefs (stated for @Martin Marprelate in post 46) - beliefs even more specific than the ECF "proofs" :

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

 

Very true.

Throughout Christian history people have tried to explain through their understanding (through how they viewed the world, justice, etc.) what God was thinking and the philosophical principles (whether justice, honor, merit, or simply a ransom suffered) behind the work of Christ.

And through all of this Christians have agreed that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. Whether it is Ransom Theory, Christus Victor, Recipitulation, Satisfaction Theory, Moral Influence, or Penal Substitution Theory the Gospel ALWAYS shines through.

My personal belief is that this is true because, unlike our understanding of the workings of the Atonement (which is the human reasoning out of Scripture), the Gospel itself is purely of God.

 

I do not want to hijack @Martin Marprelate 's thread. The question is whether or not my statements, which include more than what has been presented of the ECF's, are enough to classify me has holding to Penal Substitution Theory.

So I will ask again:

Based on my beliefs (stated for @Martin Marprelate in post 46) - beliefs even more specific than the ECF "proofs" :

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

I have started this thread so you can discuss my beliefs without hijacking @Martin Marprelate 's thread:

Back by popular demand - A view of the Atonement