Penal substitution and imputation of sin

[zoidar]

Does penal substitution necessarily mean that my sins were inputed to Jesus as he hung on the cross?

What variants if any are there to penal substitution? If I'm not wrong Augustine never held to our sins been imputed.

"[23] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology [Institutio theologiae elencticae 1679-85], 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 14.13. Contrast in this regard Augustine, who affirms penal substitution but appears to deny imputation of our sin to Christ. In Against Faustus he says to his opponent, “Confess that he died, and you may also confess that he, without taking our sin, took its punishment” (14.7). Perhaps he is here speaking ex concessis. But elsewhere he says, “By taking on your punishment, while not taking on your guilt, he canceled both guilt and punishment” (Sermon 171.3). According to Franks, this sentence “Suscipiendo poenam et non suscipiendo culpam et culpam delevit et poenam” is frequently repeated with slight variations in Augustine’s writings (Robert S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ in its Ecclesiastical Development, 2 vols. [London: Hodder & Stoughton, (1918)], I:126.) See, e.g., Augustine, The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins 1. 61, where he says that Christ transferred to his own flesh death but not sin."

Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory? | Reasonable Faith​

 

[BobRyan]

Does penal substitution necessarily mean that my sins were inputed to Jesus as he hung on the cross?

The cross illustrates God's atonement model. The perfect spotless lamb had the sins of others placed on it and it was the sacrificed as a "sin offering" not as the criminal.

Is 53

5 But He was pierced for our offenses,
He was crushed for our wrongdoings;
The punishment for our well-being was laid upon Him,
And by His wounds we are healed.
6 All of us, like sheep, have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all
To fall on Him.


...
8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off from the land of the living
For the wrongdoing of my people, to whom the blow was due?
9 And His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

10 But the Lord desired
To crush Him, causing Him grief;
If He renders Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
For He will bear their wrongdoings.


That is how atonement works so -- the Bible is a better source for this than Augustine.

1 John 2:2 "he is the ATONING SACRIFICE for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"

Those who claim the benefits of that atoning sacrifice are saved by it.

Atonement is not the same thing as "supposing the spotless lamb IS the real criminal".

The exact torment and suffering debt "owed" - "punishment owed" for each sin of each person in all the world in all of time - was paid at the cross. But that payment is only benefiting the ones that claim it through faith in Christ.

If I'm not wrong Augustine never hold to our sins been imputed.

Augustine held to a number of doctrinal errors in his life and cannot be considered the infallible source - only the Bible can hold that role.

 

[bling]

Does penal substitution necessarily mean that my sins were inputed to Jesus as he hung on the cross?

What variants if any are there to penal substitution? If I'm not wrong Augustine never held to our sins been imputed.

"[23] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology [Institutio theologiae elencticae 1679-85], 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 14.13. Contrast in this regard Augustine, who affirms penal substitution but appears to deny imputation of our sin to Christ. In Against Faustus he says to his opponent, “Confess that he died, and you may also confess that he, without taking our sin, took its punishment” (14.7). Perhaps he is here speaking ex concessis. But elsewhere he says, “By taking on your punishment, while not taking on your guilt, he canceled both guilt and punishment” (Sermon 171.3). According to Franks, this sentence “Suscipiendo poenam et non suscipiendo culpam et culpam delevit et poenam” is frequently repeated with slight variations in Augustine’s writings (Robert S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ in its Ecclesiastical Development, 2 vols. [London: Hodder & Stoughton, (1918)], I:126.) See, e.g., Augustine, The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins 1. 61, where he says that Christ transferred to his own flesh death but not sin."

Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory? | Reasonable Faith​

Atonement is a huge topic. Jesus is not the atonement, but just the atonement Sacrifice, so what else is included, especially what is man’s part?

We talk about Christ paying God for our sins 100%, yet that means God had nothing left to forgive and if God forgave our sins 100% them Christ had nothing left to pay God, so which is it, since it cannot be both?

All the popular theories of atonement all having huge issues:

1. They make God out to be blood thirsty?

2. God is seen as being extremely wrathful toward His children?

3. All leave out man’s part in the atonement process, but do try to inject it someway?

4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?

5. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer explain Jesus going to the cross as literally being a ransom payment, yet the theories do a poor job explaining how these theories are ransom/kidnap scenario (the Ransom Theory of Atonement also does a poor job).

6. A rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful parent not only needs forgiveness, but fair/just Loving discipline conducted if at all possible, with the Parent (this is for best results), yet these theories only show forgiveness and not how atonement is a fair/just loving disciplining of the sinner.

7. It makes God out to be weak needing something like Christ going to the cross to forgive or accept the sinner and/or there is this “cosmic law” God has to obey.

8. They do not fit the definition for atonement in Lev.5 here minor sins (unintentional sins) are atoned for.

9. They do not explain the contrast between those forgiven before and after the cross Ro. 3:25.

10. They have no reason for why these explanations are left out of the Christ Crucified sermons given in the New Testament.

11. They do not fit, what the new convert can/should experience when coming to the realization they caused Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered (being crucified with Christ).

12. All will give illogical interpretations of verses and words in scripture, like (My God, My God why have you forsaken me) and the English word translating the Greek “for”.

13. They have or say: God forgives our sins 100% and Christ paid for our sins 100%, but that is contradicting the scriptural understanding of “paying” and “forgiving”, since if it truly “forgiven” there is nothing to be paid. It also cheapens sin.

14. The atonement sacrifice losses significance is lost by rolling it up with the death burial and resurrection.

15. We have Peter in Acts 2 giving a wonderful “Christ Crucified” sermon, yet there is no mention of Christ being our substitute or the cross “satisfying” God in some way and that is not presented in other sermons in scripture.

The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever so it is not easy to explain:

To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but we might find the greatest understanding in Ro. 3:25, since there is Godly logic in what happened.

Atonement is one of those religious concepts which is best understood through experiencing it, then trying to explain it. Unfortunately, the new Christian is filled with ideas about atonement prior to experiencing it, so they are brain washed into trying to feel something that does not happen and quenching what should happen.

One of the advantages the Jews before Christ’s sacrifice had with atonement was personally going through the atonement process for very minor sins (unintentional sins). Lev. 5 explains why, what sinner goes through in the atonement process and might be a good place to start, since Lev. 4-5 is where atonement begins. There is also the advantage of the Lev. 5 atonement being for the individuals personal and actual sins.

We might be able to take the atonement process for very minor sins and extrapolate up to what it could be like for rebellious disobedience directly towards God requiring death for the sinner with no atonement possible under the Old Law.

It would be best to imagen yourself as a first century (BC) Jewish man who just accidently touched a dead unclean animal. If you are real poor you are going to have to work an extra job help someone else for money to buy a sack of flour. If you live in the city and have money you are going to have to go out and buy a lamb and some grain to feed it. You are not a shepherd, so you will have to drag or carry a balling, thirsty and hungry lamb to the altar. You get up early to hike into Jerusalem wait in line for hours to hand the flour or lamb to the priest and watch them go through their part of the atonement process which if you all did everything right will result in God forgiving you and you feeling forgiven.

There is more to what and why this happens which we can find in Lev. 5:

5…they must confess in what way they have sinned. (which we need to do in the atonement process)

6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed… Here the reason for atonement is given “as a penalty” (punishment but better translated disciplining).

If the sacrifice was made as a “payment” for a sin: these sins are all the same and God considers all people the same, so the sacrifice would need to be the same (a lamb for all or doves for all or flour for all) but they are not the same. The different values of the sacrifices, is an attempt to equalize the hardship/penalty (disciplining) on the sinners and does not suggest a payment being made to God especially a payment to forgive a sin. God does not need a bag of flour to forgive sins.

The intention of the sinner going through all this, would be, all the benefits that come from being Lovingly disciplined.

We really need to go through every verse relating to atonement and sacrifice to gleam a true understanding.


Try just this small part of atonement:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper (this is what the Ransom Theory of atonement has), but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?


There is one very likely kidnapper and that is the person holding a child back from entering the Kingdom to be with God. When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified (which is described as the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom payment (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

 

[BobRyan]

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy. .

God's law is the only thing specifying the exact payment. Satan can't create Law. But a you say God is not getting paid.

In the atonement model of scripture -- God is not "getting paid" rather God is "getting tortured" ... tormented for our sins -- paying our debt of torment.

So then Atonement is not the "Grocery story" model where once you "pay the grocer" you can do whatever you like with those groceries , they belong to you and the grocer is "paid in full". That is not atonement.

In the Atonement model of the Bible "God pays" - He becomes the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Isaiah 53. Which gives Him the right to offer forgiveness and ALSO gives Him the right to REVOKE forgiveness as in Christ's Matt 18 "Forgiveness revoked" example - since God was never "paid" in the first place. He was tortured.

Matt 18:
I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his master, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

So you can have "forgave you all" and it is followed by "REPAY all" in that forgiveness revoked statement.

Notice what it is not. It is NOT "I never actually forgave you anything to start with so then you did to others just as I did to you - you did not forgive them either". (Though some have imagined that into the text at times)

 

[Rapture Bound]

zoidar said in the OP, "Does penal substitution necessarily mean that my sins were imputed to Jesus as he hung on the cross?"

My Reply :

Absolutely! - If not, there would be zero hope or opportunity for any person to be justified before God. We have all sinned countless times before we were regenerated at justification, and if we live any significant time at all after regeneration, we will sin many, many times as well.[whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether knowingly or unknowingly, whether sins of omission or sins of commission] ...we are all hopeless apart from being "in Christ"; but by virtue of being "in Christ" we are viewed by the Father as being as righteous as He is.[despite all of our imperfections].

And although the word "imputed" never appears in scripture, it's concept is clearly implied many times throughout the scriptures. [just as the word "Holy Trinity" for example].

Here my focus is upon the "imputed" or "as if I had never sinned" aspect involved in Christ's atoning work on our behalf. This does not mean that Christ's righteousness is automatically transferred to every person every born; this exchange only becomes beneficial for those who truly have placed their faith Christ as their sole means of forgiveness and acceptance before the Father.

 

[bling]

God's law is the only thing specifying the exact payment. Satan can't create Law. But a you say God is not getting paid.

In the atonement model of scripture -- God is not "getting paid" rather God is "getting tortured" ... tormented for our sins -- paying our debt of torment.

So then Atonement is not the "Grocery story" model where once you "pay the grocer" you can do whatever you like with those groceries , they belong to you and the grocer is "paid in full". That is not atonement.

In the Atonement model of the Bible "God pays" - He becomes the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Isaiah 53. Which gives Him the right to offer forgiveness and ALSO gives Him the right to REVOKE forgiveness as in Christ's Matt 18 "Forgiveness revoked" example - since God was never "paid" in the first place. He was tortured.

That is not the “atonement model”, in Lev. 5.

Wow! Who can withhold the “right” of God to do anything?

So, you believe God does not have the power, Love and/or right to forgive, without being tortured first? Where is the scripture to support such a conclusion?

If God forgives our debt 100% what is left to be “paid”?

Matt 18:
I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his master, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

So you can have "forgave you all" and it is followed by "REPAY all" in that forgiveness revoked statement.

Notice what it is not. It is NOT "I never actually forgave you anything to start with so then you did to others just as I did to you - you did not forgive them either". (Though some have imagined that into the text at times)

Look at Matt. 18:

God’s Definition of Forgiveness

When sincere Christians differ, it mostly has to do with differences in their assumptions including differences in the definitions of the same words their using.

“Forgiveness” is one of those words we have different definitions for that causes “doctrinal” differences between sincere Christians.

I feel Christ is giving us Deity’s definition for “forgiveness” in Matt. 18:21-35, “The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant”.

Most commentaries give us what the parable does not say and only the ending “Moral to the Story” (forgive others) without getting into the factual details and explain what appears to be God taking back His forgiving.


We need to figure out the “question” the parable is addressing and the context.

Just prior to the parable we have:

Matt. 18: 21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

Peter asks a good question and seems generous by providing his take on the answer of “is it seven times”, since three times is the Old Testament was given.

Christ makes a huge change by saying 77 times (virtually saying: “always”), so it is important to try to put yourself in their shoes hearing this idea for the first time, do you think the disciples would be thinking: “How is this change going to impact my life”, this is normal people’s thinking with new information. So will they will go on to think “How can I keep from being taken advantage of by brothers and sisters?”

We know from all other previous encounters: Jesus knowing their thinking, so He will address in a parable their problem with His previous answer, by giving them the true definition for “forgiveness”.


First off: This debt is totally unbelievably huge, no one has that kind of money to lend, no one could get into anywhere near this kind of “debt”, and there was no way to make that kind of payment. It is actually hard to believe one person could even spend this much money in a life time in the first century.

Matt 18:25 “Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered…” Here we know the Master knew there is no way to pay this debt and this servant entrusted with such a huge responsibility would also realize he could never pay it back.

Matt 18: 26 “…‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’” This servant is not asking for unconditional forgiveness, but “more time”, with the promise of paying it back in full, but the Master is not an idiot, the Master just previously said there is no way to pay this debt, and since this servant has been entrusted with and spent already 10,000 talents, he knows he cannot earn that amount. The servant is lying to the Master and maybe lying to himself.

When the Master: canceled (forgave) the debt and let him go, what did the servant “hear” (think) and possibly believe: “Oh the Master accepted my offer”, “I got time”, “The Master is stupid”, “I did OK”, “The Master does not care about the money”, or “the master must really like me”?

Luke 7: 36-50. Christ teaches us this truism: “He that is forgiven much Loves much” so Godly type Love would come automatically if a person was forgiven of an unbelievable huge Debt meaning he will automatically receiving an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love), so how is it possible for this “forgiven” servant to not Love one of the Master’s servants and treat him graciously?

Matt. 18: 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. There is no other debt mentioned, so this debt has to be referring to the debt the Master forgave, but if the debt is unconditionally forgiven how can the Master talk about the servant needing to pay it back in full since it is a forgiven debt?

If we take all these Biblical truisms and allow them to define “Forgiveness” instead of taking our definition of forgiveness and force us to make an acceptation for God (Allow God to mislead us (lie)) Deity’s definition will resolve these apparent Biblical contradictions.

There is more to our having God’s forgiveness, than God just unconditional forgiving us, but this “more” will not mean God’s forgiving is conditional.

The “conditional” part for the potential receiver of forgiveness is found in completing the definition of forgiveness and not in the part the forgiver plays (God).

In order to complete the definition of Biblical forgiveness the person being forgiven has to humble accept that forgiveness as pure, undeserved charity.

The unmerciful servant did not humbly accept the Master’s unconditional forgiving as pure undeserved charity, so the transaction of forgiveness was not completed. We know this because he did not Love much and he still owes the money.

Again, it is not the Master taking His unconditional forgiveness back, but forgiveness itself, by definition did not happen.

How does this explanation address the question: “How can I keep from being taken advantage of by brothers and sisters?”

 

[zoidar]

zoidar said in the OP, "Does penal substitution necessarily mean that my sins were imputed to Jesus as he hung on the cross?"

My Reply :

Absolutely! - If not, there would be zero hope or opportunity for any person to be justified before God. We have all sinned countless times before we were regenerated at justification, and if we live any significant time at all after regeneration, we will sin many, many times as well.[whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether knowingly or unknowingly, whether sins of omission or sins of commission] ...we are all hopeless apart from being "in Christ"; but by virtue of being "in Christ" we are viewed by the Father as being as righteous as He is.[despite all of our imperfections].

And although the word "imputed" never appears in scripture, it's concept is clearly implied many times throughout the scriptures. [just as the word "Holy Trinity" for example].

Here my focus is upon the "imputed" or "as if I had never sinned" aspect involved in Christ's atoning work on our behalf. This does not mean that Christ's righteousness is automatically transferred to every person every born; this exchange only becomes beneficial for those who truly have placed their faith Christ as their sole means of forgiveness and acceptance before the Father.

I get what you are saying, but isn't it still penal subsitution if you don't hold to the imputation part? I suppose it is since in the article I quoted it says Augustine believed in penal substitution, but not imputation. Hm...

 

[Rapture Bound]

zoidar replied [post #7], "I get what you are saying, but isn't it still penal subsitution if you don't hold to the imputation part? I suppose it is since in the article I quoted it says Augustine believed in penal substitution, but not imputation. Hm..."

My Reply ;

Yes, I suppose that a person could believe in penal substitution without also holding to the doctrine of Christ's imputed righteousness. However, that still leaves Augustine with the dilemma of explaining how a person can possibly remained justified subsequent to regeneration apart from believing in Christ's imputed righteousness to those in Christ. In other words, our constant confessing and repenting of sins are not the grounds for our acceptance before God prior or subsequent to regeneration.

For instance, what happens if a believer forgets to confess certain sins, or isn't even aware of others? Is that person now under condemnation? ... a ludicrous thought indeed. Either all of a person's sins were forgiven at the cross [past, present and future] or none of them were. Only an imputed righteousness can account for the covering of unconfessed or sins unrepentant of. And if people really imagine that that have perfectly confessed, and perfectly repented of all of their sins ... they are deeply and seriously deceived.

 

[BobRyan]

That is not the “atonement model”, in Lev. 5.

Wow! Who can withhold the “right” of God to do anything?

So, you believe God does not have the power, Love and/or right to forgive, without being tortured first?

God is the one that created the Law and set the rules and stated that He is NOT arbitrary but rather is "both just and the justifier".

That was His sovereign choice not my choice "for him" .. He was not looking to me for that and then declaring it. Rather it is actual scripture.

So then your point becomes "so you think God is just (as He said He is)? and tells the truth?".

If God forgives our debt 100% what is left to be “paid”?

God is the one giving us the "forgiveness revoked teaching" in Matt 18. I did not write it.

Matt 18:
I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his master, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

Look at Matt. 18:
...I feel Christ is giving us Deity’s definition for “forgiveness” in Matt. 18:21-35,...

When the Master: canceled (forgave) the debt and let him go, what did the servant “hear” (think) and possibly believe: “Oh the Master accepted my offer”, “I got time”, “The Master is stupid”,

Your speculation at that point... noted. But it is not what the text says.

In the text the servant is fully forgiven. It does not say "so his servant supposed the master was stupid".. that is quite a leap and cannot be inserted in the example Christ gives in that text.

When Christ says "so shall My Father do to each one of you , IF..." -- he is placing his own followers in the position of the "I forgave you ALL" - fully forgiven servant.

The point remains.

 

[Clare73]

Does penal substitution necessarily mean that my sins were inputed to Jesus as he hung on the cross?

What variants if any are there to penal substitution? If I'm not wrong Augustine never held to our sins been imputed.

"[23] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology [Institutio theologiae elencticae 1679-85], 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 14.13. Contrast in this regard Augustine, who affirms penal substitution but appears to deny imputation of our sin to Christ. In Against Faustus he says to his opponent, “Confess that he died, and you may also confess that he, without taking our sin, took its punishment” (14.7). Perhaps he is here speaking ex concessis. But elsewhere he says, “By taking on your punishment, while not taking on your guilt, he canceled both guilt and punishment” (Sermon 171.3). According to Franks, this sentence “Suscipiendo poenam et non suscipiendo culpam et culpam delevit et poenam” is frequently repeated with slight variations in Augustine’s writings (Robert S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ in its Ecclesiastical Development, 2 vols. [London: Hodder & Stoughton, (1918)], I:126.) See, e.g., Augustine, The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins 1. 61, where he says that Christ transferred to his own flesh death but not sin."

Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory? | Reasonable Faith​

The model for understanding Jesus' sacrifice is the OT sacrificial system, where the animal bore the sin of the people and was put to death (blood) in their place (substitutionary atonement).

 

[zoidar]

The model for understanding Jesus' sacrifice is the OT sacrificial system, where the animal bore the sin of the people and was put to death (blood) in their place (substitutionary atonement).

That is not really what I asked, but when you state things like that it's good to back it up with Bible verses.

Ps. not saying you are wrong about it.

 

[BobRyan]

That is not really what I asked, but when you state things like that it's good to back it up with Bible verses.

Isaiah 53 and 1 John 2:2

 

[The Liturgist]

Does penal substitution necessarily mean that my sins were inputed to Jesus as he hung on the cross?

What variants if any are there to penal substitution? If I'm not wrong Augustine never held to our sins been imputed.

"[23] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology [Institutio theologiae elencticae 1679-85], 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 14.13. Contrast in this regard Augustine, who affirms penal substitution but appears to deny imputation of our sin to Christ. In Against Faustus he says to his opponent, “Confess that he died, and you may also confess that he, without taking our sin, took its punishment” (14.7). Perhaps he is here speaking ex concessis. But elsewhere he says, “By taking on your punishment, while not taking on your guilt, he canceled both guilt and punishment” (Sermon 171.3). According to Franks, this sentence “Suscipiendo poenam et non suscipiendo culpam et culpam delevit et poenam” is frequently repeated with slight variations in Augustine’s writings (Robert S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ in its Ecclesiastical Development, 2 vols. [London: Hodder & Stoughton, (1918)], I:126.) See, e.g., Augustine, The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins 1. 61, where he says that Christ transferred to his own flesh death but not sin."

Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory? | Reasonable Faith​

There are a number of viable, non-Pelagian alternatives to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which in its current form really originated with Calvinism, based on what I regard as a misinterpretation of St. Augustine by Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas.

The English Eastern Orthodox bishop and Professor Emeritus at Oxford Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia does a brilliant job in this lecture at Seattle Pacific University of outlining the Eastern Orthodox approaches to this problem, which are in my opinion much more closely aligned with Patristic theology and are more suitable for non-Calvinist Protestantism, such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Moravianism and Congregationalism:

 

[zoidar]

There are a number of viable, non-Pelagian alternatives to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which in its current form really originated with Calvinism, based on what I regard as a misinterpretation of St. Augustine by Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas.

The English Eastern Orthodox bishop and Professor Emeritus at Oxford Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia does a brilliant job in this lecture at Seattle Pacific University of outlining the Eastern Orthodox approaches to this problem, which are in my opinion much more closely aligned with Patristic theology and are more suitable for non-Calvinist Protestantism, such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Moravianism and Congregationalism:

The video is quite long, but I'll watch it later. Thanks!

 

[The Liturgist]

The video is quite long, but I'll watch it later. Thanks!

No problem. I usually try to avoid with a link to a video but soteriology is complex and it would take quite a long post to explain it, and frankly I’m not as entertaining as Metropolitan Kallistos.

 

[BobRyan]

There are a number of viable, non-Pelagian alternatives to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which in its current form really originated with Calvinism, based on what I regard as a misinterpretation of St. Augustine by Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas.

Or it just came from reading the Bible and accepting it as it reads - so then the faith of the first century Apostles and we are back to 1 John 2:2, Isaiah 53 and 2 Cor 5:21. The easy and obvious path.

 

[bling]

The model for understanding Jesus' sacrifice is the OT sacrificial system, where the animal bore the sin of the people and was put to death (blood) in their place (substitutionary atonement).

The relationship between the sacrifice and the sinner is not one of replacing the sinner which you can see from Lev. 5:
The Jews under the Law would have a good understanding of atonement by experiencing atonement for very minor sins which took little disciplining:


Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

 

[BobRyan]

Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement .

The "pet theory" is that Lev 16, Lev 5, Is 53 and 1 John 2:2 are all in agreement as is 2 Cor 5:21. (I suspect we agree more than we differ here - but your wording strikes me as unusual)

Lev 5:6 He shall also bring his guilt offering to the Lord for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin.

Notice how Romans 6 refers to it.

Rom 6:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 Far from it! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
​

Gal 3:
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

2 Cor 5:21
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Pet 2:
23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.

1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

....
The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

agreed.

Lev 5 and Lev 16 both show that the only sins atoned for - are those that had been confessed and the blood claimed. Which means confession and repentance is part of that process.

But the mechanism/benefit comes from the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Christ - plus His mediatorial work as our High Priest in heaven as we confess and repent and appeal to His work in our behalf. All of it is needed for our atonement to be complete.

What is completed "at the cross" is the "Atoning sacrifice", not the entire Lev 16 process of atonement.

 

[bling]

God is the one that created the Law and set the rules and stated that He is NOT arbitrary but rather is "both just and the justifier".

That was His sovereign choice not my choice "for him" .. He was not looking to me for that and then declaring it. Rather it is actual scripture.

So then your point becomes "so you think God is just (as He said He is)? and tells the truth?".

God is definitely not “arbitrary”, so He thought out and defined “justice”, which we have by example and words in scripture.

Where do you find in scripture the requirement of being tortured to forgive another?

God is totally “just” and totally “Loving” with unconditional unselfish forgiving being part of “Love”. God does not need permission or anything else to Love (forgive), since that is who God is.

Being “Just” would include treating everyone “equally” in all significant areas (those which can bring us salvation), it does not matter to whom we are born to or where we are born, when it comes to free will choices.

God is the one giving us the "forgiveness revoked teaching" in Matt 18. I did not write it.

Matt 18:
I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his master, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”



Your speculation at that point... noted. But it is not what the text says.

In the text the servant is fully forgiven. It does not say "so his servant supposed the master was stupid".. that is quite a leap and cannot be inserted in the example Christ gives in that text.

When Christ says "so shall My Father do to each one of you , IF..." -- he is placing his own followers in the position of the "I forgave you ALL" - fully forgiven servant.

The point remains.

Are we to unconditionally forgive others and if so, under what “condition(s)” can we take back our forgiving?

God cannot lie, so God forgives all unmerciful servants (really God has forgiven everyone). Jesus asked God to forgive those crucifying Him, and knowing the relationship between Christ and God, God forgave them, but later (Acts 2) Peter tells those same people, they are guilty of crucifying Christ, so were they not forgiven by God?

The problem is not with God’s Love and ability to forgive, God is doing His part perfectly, but man has to humbly accept that pure undeserved charitable forgiving as charity or forgiveness is not completed.

You are making God out to be a liar by saying: “God took back His unconditional forgiving”, while I am saying the servant did not accept being forgiven by the Master as pure undeserved charity, so forgiveness did not take place, but God still Lovingly forgave (that is who God is) and that is what we should do.

I did not say what the servant thought but asked you a question with alternatives of what he might be thinking: “… what did the servant “hear” (think) and possibly believe: “Oh the Master accepted my offer”, “I got time”, “The Master is stupid”, “I did OK”, “The Master does not care about the money”, or “the master must really like me”?

 

[BobRyan]

God is definitely not “arbitrary”, so He thought out and defined “justice”, which we have by example and words in scripture.

True. Mankind gets its definition for morality, sin, righteousness and justice from God.

Adam and Eve had God as their teacher and taught their children and so is the case with Noah's family after the flood. All mankind is derived from that.

Where do you find in scripture the requirement of being tortured to forgive another?

The Bible has the concept of exact payment for exact crime.. sin. "eye for eye tooth for tooth".

In addition the Bible shows just recompense for evil as in the case of Luke 12

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

In God's model - punishment is proportional to crime - so it is not "infinite for all crime no matter how small".

In God's civil system under the OT theocracy a judge was declared "unjust" if he simply "forgave the debts his friends and family owed to others -- as if the law did not apply to those whom he favored".

God is totally “just” and totally “Loving” with unconditional unselfish forgiving being part of “Love”. God does not need permission or anything else to Love (forgive), since that is who God is.

And He is equally "just and the justifier of them that seek Him".

Being “Just” would include treating everyone “equally”

Indeed. "impartial"

Rom 2:11 "God is NOT partial"

The Jews in Rome (according to Rom 2) did not believe in this. They thought they could "get by with murder" so to speak while the gentiles would be held strictly accountable. Paul said "not so".

Are we to unconditionally forgive others

Yes or else we lose our own salvation as we see in Matt 6.

But that would be an "unjust civil law" if the Judge was determined to throw the victims in prison for their failure to forgive the criminals that abused them. Not only that - if the judge just threw every case out of court with "I forgive you" - even the OT system declares that to be evil. It does not work at the civil level.

The judge must personally forgive everyone - but legally in a court of law he cannot do that and still be without sin, morally upright, just.

God cannot lie, so God forgives all unmerciful servants

In Matt 18 it is not the unmerciful servant that is forgiven - it is the pleading servant who falls on the mercy of the king/judge who is forgiven. But when he later turns - and is unmerciful to others - he himself is condemned by that same judge/king.

"So shall My Father do to each one of you IF you do not forgive your brother"