Again, I have no possible way of affirming this claim. Virtually every writer from scripture and across both OT and NT, as well as Church Fathers, Catholics and Protestants affirm Jesus' substitutionary role.
Please justify your claim.
Again, I am not familiar with anyone across church history espousing this theory. Please justify.
I have lots of both logical and Biblical support for my conclusion, but this means explaining my whole understanding of atonement which I do not mind doing if you will both read it and answer my questions.
There is a reason there are around a dozen different “theories” of atonement, since all the explanations have huge logical and Biblical issues, so they remain “theories”. Any theory has its strong points, but the strength of the theory is in how it explains the apparent exceptions. The truth is both very logical, practical, Biblical and something we experience.
There are both lots of reasons for it not being substitution and atonement being something else, so to address the issues with substitution consider the following (I will use (PS) for penal substitution):
PS is not fair or just by human standards even if the innocent is willing, so why would God in scripture ,and Jesus in behavior, give us a different standard and say His is perfect?
PS makes God out to have the problem needing something in order to forgive people.
PS has God responsible/cause for the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ, so is that your God?
PS loses all the benefit that comes from disciplining/punishing the guilty
PS does not explain the need for “faith” in the atonement process, man has no part.
If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for “penal substitution” is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.
It also does not explain how something 100% forgiven has to also be 100% paid for, since that is not the way things work. If the debt were paid in full there would be no need for forgiveness and if the debt is forgiven payment is not needed. Where do we find this in scripture?
Substitution implies an "either/or"; participation implies a "both/and." Substitution would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I don't have to"; participation would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I must also." Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14.
Did the Jews feel their bag of flour was being a substitute for them?
Also, if Penal substitution is what happened with the cross why did Peter not mention it in his excellent “Christ Crucified” sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2), that would certainly be the time to present it?
There are other issues with PS to be discussed later.
Before we through out PS we need a better replacement idea so let’s work on that:
Christ’s atoning sacrifice is described by Christ, Paul, John, Peter and the writer of Hebrews as a literal ransom payment and not just like a ransom payment, I totally disagree with the “Ransom Theory of Atonement” since God owes satan nothing and it would even be wrong for God to pay His enemy when God could just as easily and safely save His children without paying satan,
but to have the ransom paid to God is even more bizarre, since God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor would He be holding His own children. If we say there is no kidnapper or the kidnapper is some intangible like sin or death does not make since either, so
who is the kidnapper? We can agree on the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ being the huge payment, Christ/God being the sacrificial payers, and since only children can go into the Kingdom, the child within each of us is freed to go to where God presides. So who is the criminal holding the child back from the Kingdom and if that criminal refuses to accept the ransom payment will the child go free (will atonement take place)?
Substitution for the most part avoids a discussion of Christ being a literal ransom payment, since substitution does not explain, so it is called a “poor” very limited analogy, but those in support of the Ransom Theory of Atonement can really get into why it is a ransom and God cannot be the kidnapper (you can find them on the internet), but never consider any other alternative than satan which does not work either.
Practically: When you go up to an unbeliever you try to sell them on “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” to get him/her to accept that, but that is another way of saying “getting them to accept the ransom payment”.
Logically: The unbelieving mature adult is the one holding the child within himself back from the Kingdom (God), that describes a kidnapper, faith (trust) in Christ and what Christ did, is what’s needed (accepting the payment), so this provides the logic behind the need for faith in the atonement process. It is not that Christ went to the cross for just some and not all, but man has a part to play in the process which limits the completion of the atonement. This also explains why the refusing of this huge ransom payment would result in hell.
The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever, so it takes a lot to show the logic and benefit.
Paul repeats ideas and builds on the previous explanation, so the ideas in Romans’ 5 go back to Ro. 3:25 and even further back to Romans’ 1.
I would at least start with Ro. 3:25
Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, only a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished” (NIV), but that also should mean the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.
From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …
Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).
God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.
Paul goes on to explain:
Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished
I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined”.
So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.
God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.
If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize at the time, Christ was on the cross God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified standing before God.)
Look at what is being preached to nonbelievers by Disciples of Christ from Acts 2 to at least Acts 9 and we have lots of Christ crucified sermons being given to really go after the sinner’s heart with the responsibility of persecuting and murdering the Messiah, but nothing said about Christ taking their place. Christ does not tell Saul/Paul I took your place on the cross, Stephan’s sermon to the Pharisees is not “Christ took your place” and the sermons with Acts 2 and after in Jerusalem could be described mainly as: “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified…”.
A great deal is made of the fact “for” is used which those wanting to support the substitution idea assume means “instead of” and act like that is the obvious meaning.
Prepositions do change meanings over time and it is hard to say what the exact meaning was in the first century Jerusalem area, so I cannot “prove” anything, but can look at the issues:
There are lots of words in the Greek translated “for” in the English. They include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia ("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper ("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of"). None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." The Greek word “anti” translate “for” sometimes conveys the meaning “instead of” but could mean “in exchange, in payment for, because of and similar meanings.” According the Strong’s commentary “anti” is used 22 times in the NT, but only twice in context with atonement (really once recorded twice) “...my life a ransom for many” but this does not help because “anti” in other places conveys the idea of “payment for or to” and Christ is saying it is “anti” you which does not tell us who is the kidnapper receiving the ransom, so it could be payment to you. Why was “anti”, which was available, not used any other time in the context of atonement to really show substitution if it was substitution?
I would love to go through every verse on Atonement, but that is way too much for one post so you can choose your favorites and we can go from there.
