Penal substitution and imputation of sin

[BobRyan]

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

You are saying that ( for whatever reason ) - the servant never actually had the full forgiveness experience and therefore had no basis at all to forgive anyone else but rather was perfectly sound in not forgiving others just as he himself had never actually experienced forgiveness and therefore could not have anything like "acting out of gratitude for his own full forgiveness experience". You turn the teaching on its head when you do that - and then claim I am making God out to be a liar even though you insert "NOT true! - not forgiven all" into the middle of the text??

That is a pretty thin argument in that it requires denying the most key detail in the text, inserting "not" in front of it.

 

[Clare73]

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:

Leviticus 4-5 do not consider the sin to be "minor."

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.

Leviticus 4 and Leviticus 5:14ff are about two entirely different sacrifices.
Leviticus 4:1-5:13 gives instructions for the sin sacrifice.
Leviticus 5:14ff gives instructions for the guilt sacrifice.

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,

"Lite symbolic references"?

The sin goat paying with its life for their sin?
The scapegoat bearing their sin as far away as the east is from the west?
The cleansing blood of the sacrifice?
Burning to ashes of the bull and goat sacrifices--their sin put away never to rise in judgment against them (Romans 8:1, Romans 8:33-34)?
The High Priest being the only one who can make atonement (the only one who can cleanse the NT tabernacle--1 Corinthians 3:16)?

Lev. 5 is a closer representation.

Closer representation of what?
Leviticus 5:14ff is about sacrifices requiring restitution in property matters, including using unawarely what should have been offered for tithes, first fruits, first-born animals (Leviticus 22:14).

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.

Leviticus 5:14ff is not the model, the model is Leviticus 4, the sin offering.

All sin sacrifices were for unintentional sin.
There was no sacrifice for intentional (high-handed, defiant, rebellious) sin. They died in their sin (Numbers 15:30), a type of the sin of unbelief and rebellion (Hebrews 10:26-27; John 3:18).

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.

That would be your personal reworking of the text. . .nowhere in either the OT nor the NT do we find anything about the purpose of "the process" of the sacrifice.

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”.

Actually, "penalty" is the "better" translation, because that is the word used in the text.

Please spare us your complete reworking of Leviticus to support your personal and contra-Biblical notion regarding God's judgment never being punishment, penalty nor condemnation, but always being discipline only, and then reworking texts to turn them into examples of the "discipline" of "the atonement process" rather than their being the penalty for sin as the texts repeatedly state, as seen in the above and in the following:

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.

 

[bling]

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)

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

This is an extremely important verse to show imputing our sins to Christ, so the imputing of righteousness to man seems logical, BUT:

Is that even a good translation?

What does “Christ made to be sin” or “Christ made sin” mean: did Christ become a sinner, did a being become an intangible thing like “sin” and are there other scripture to help us with this?

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is the analogy in 2 Corinthians 8:9; the cross-reference to the clearer statement in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deal with sin; and the allusion to Sacrifice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ "knew no sin" in corresponding to the sacrificial animal being free of blemish (otherwise Paul saying "knew no sin" would be irrelevant here).

The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.

You can certainly do a deeper study of 2 Cor 5: 21 and we can go into Ro.3-4.

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.

The offering is definitely “for his sin”, but the offering, which can be a bag of flour, is not to take his place. The atonement process is completed with the burning of the offering and with that out of the way God forgives.

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;​

Yes, we get the full sense of our burying our old life of sin and rising to a new life (baptism is the physical experience we have to help us realize what is happening to us spiritually).

This verse does not say: “Christ was crucified instead of us or took our place”, but says: “our old self was crucified with Him”, so how do we experience that painful torture, humiliation and murder? Did God the Father while in heaven (or at His side) empathetically experience the crucifixion? Did you empathetically experience being crucified with Christ when you came to Love Christ?

​

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.

The Greek words translated “for” in this place and most others times meant: “because of” or “as a benefit to”. The Greek word “anti” used 22 times in scripture can mean “instead of”, but also can mean: “because of” or “as a benefit to”, but that is not used here.

What Christ did on the cross for our benefit and because we sinned, was harsh in every way, which should bring us to our knees, if were not for the fact the greatest Love is being shown us at this time.

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.

Explained above

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,

First: we need to explore the meaning of: “bore our sins in His own body”? Do you believe Christ was made a sinner? I think we do not like the idea of Christ becoming a sinner or that sins are tangible things that can be carried around, so most seem to think this has to do with punishment for sins, Christ is taking the punishment a sinned deserves or like a sinner deserves? Peter refers to Christ as being the just and doing this “for” us (again the meaning of the Greek word translated “for” is not “instead of”, but “because of” or “to benefit”).

We are the ones who have died to sin (sins are like dead stuff to us).

This does not say we have been made righteous, but so we might live for righteousness.

The black and blue marks (stripes) heal us (cure the disease of sin).

Who has the problem with us going before God? Does God lack the Love to accept us or do we have the problem?

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.

Lev. 16 is different: These are for sins you think you may or might have committed, but are not sure if you did or that what you did falls under being a sin, while Lev. 5 talks only about unintentional sins you have become aware of. It is hard to “confess” to a sin you do not know you even committed.

Lev. 16 is trying to help people who get paranoid about sinning and have heavy fearful guilt, thus they start worrying about just the possibility they might have sinned.

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.

Peter gives the best “Christ Crucified” sermons the audience in Jerusalem at that time could have, so why did Peter never talk about the benefits of Christ taking their place on the cross? Peter really emphasizes their murdering the Messiah, which cuts them to the heart (the worst feeling they could experience without dying themselves [they experienced being crucified with Christ]).

Any wonderful parent will not only quickly forgive a disobedient child, but, if at all possible, will see to the fair/just Loving discipline of the child and will also experience the harsh pain with them to further build the relationship, so is God a wonderful Parent?

 

[bling]

You are saying that ( for whatever reason ) - the servant never actually had the full forgiveness experience and therefore had no basis at all to forgive anyone else but rather was perfectly sound in not forgiving others just as he himself had never actually experienced forgiveness and therefore could not have anything like "acting out of gratitude for his own full forgiveness experience". You turn the teaching on its head when you do that - and then claim I am making God out to be a liar even though you insert "NOT true! - not forgiven all" into the middle of the text??

That is a pretty thin argument in that it requires denying the most key detail in the text, inserting "not" in front of it.

God is forgiving everyone all the time, but forgiveness is a transaction and not just one sided. The person, whom forgiver is trying to have experience forgiveness, has to humbly accept that charitable undeserved forgiving as pure undeserved charity or the transaction of forgiveness never took place, even though the forgiver forgave. The person still owes the debt.
If you say the Master took His forgiving "back", then that makes the master a liar, since the Master said "I forgive you".

 

[bling]

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.



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".

Wait just one minute here: there is nothing about punishing forgiven sinners in scripture, but lots about disciplining or punishing the guilty. Forgiven sinners, are not punished.

Most of what we are taught about “punishing” is really to be taken as loving discipline.

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



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".



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.

A civil judge is to follow the civil Laws, he took an oath to adhere to that law which has little or no forgiving in it.

God is not our civil Judge, but better thought of as our Father, Shepherd and Judge.

Does a wonderful Parent have a hard time forgiving their children? The problem comes with getting that child to humbly accept forgiveness as it was given (as pure undeserved charity) and to correctly accept the discipline which goes along with the forgiveness. The children who do not correctly accept the forgiveness and discipline, might have to be “punished” to at least help the father’s other children see the consequences. Punishment is harsher than discipline, but we can see that as be fair/just.

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"

If forgiveness of this unbelievable huge debt happened to the servant, then he automatically has a huge Love (Luke 7), so there is no way for him to be hateful toward another servant of the Master.

The forgiven servant was just asking for more time. The master points out that he is the exact same servant. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.” We know forgiveness did not happen, because the servant did not “Love much” Luke 7 and the fact the debt is still owed.

Think about this: God Loves everyone, so why is everyone not saved? Does God stop Loving some people?

How about the idea: “everyone just does not humbly accept God’s Love as pure undeserved charity and not doing so, means the transaction of Love does not take place, but God still Loves.”

Our earthly objective is the same as the prodigal son’s objective, which the father was doing all he could to help his son fulfill. Obtain and grow Godly type Love to be like the Father and to be happy in heaven where there is only Godly type Love exchanged.

The only way I see to initially obtain this unbelievable huge Love is by humbly accepting God’s forgiveness of a huge unbelievable debt as pure undeserved charity and then you automatically are given Godly type Love. If you do not accept God forgiving you, you do not get the Love, is that not what we see with this servant in Matt. 18, how else can you explain his actions?

 

[bling]

Leviticus 4 and Leviticus 5 are about two entirely different sacrifices.
Leviticus 4 gives instructions for the sin sacrifice.
Leviticus 5 gives instructions for the guilt sacrifice.

I am talking about atonement which is found in both Lev. 4 and Lev. 5

Lev. 4:32 “‘If someone brings a lamb as their sin offering, they are to bring a female without defect. 33 They are to lay their hand on its head and slaughter it for a sin offering at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered. 34 Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 35 They shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

"Light symbolic references"?
The sin goat paying with its life for their sin?
The scapegoat bearing their sin as far away as the east is from the west?
The cleansing blood of the sacrifice?
Burning to ashes of the bull and goat sacrifices--their sin put away never to rise in judgment against them (Romans 8:1, Romans 8:33-34)?
The High Priest being the only one who can make atonement (the only one who can cleanse the NT tabernacle--1 Corinthians 3:16)?

Closer representation of what?



Leviticus 5 is not the model, the model is Leviticus 4, the sin offering.

All sin sacrifices were for unintentional sin.
There was no sacrifice for intentional (high-handed, defiant, rebellious) sin. They died in their sin (Numbers 15:30), a type of the sin of unbelief and rebellion (Hebrews 10:26-27; John 3:18).

That would be your personal addition to the text. . .nowhere in either the OT nor the NT do we find anything about the purpose of "the process" of the sacrifice.

Actually, "penalty" is the "better" translation, because that is the word used in the text.

Lev. 16 takes some explaining:

First off: what “sins” are we talking about? We know from Lev.5 how unintentional sins are to be handled and from other scripture we know how direct disobedience against God sins are handled (death or banishment). Lev. 16 is for all other possible sins. These sins are ones you are not even sure you committed or are not sure they are even sins. The sins in Lev. 5 are very minor sins you do come to realize as sins, while in Lev. 16 you do not know.

However, Leviticus 16 references the Day of Atonement sacrifices, which is the foreshadowing of Christ.

Shadows are very weak representations of the reality they are a shadow of. Lev. 5 maybe a better shadow of the reality. There is some stuff in Lev. 16 which helps a little in explaining what Christ did on the cross, but Christ is not trying to be the replacement for Lev. 16, since the sacrifice on the day of atonement did very little and would not “save” an individual.

We are talking about the atonement sacrifice.


It is more than just one step so it is a process.

Please spare us your complete reworking of Leviticus to support your personal and contra-Biblical notion regarding God's judgment never being punishment, penalty nor condemnation, but always being discipline only.

No, I did not say that, those who go to hell are punished.

We are trying to define/understand atonement and looking at Lev. to do just that.

 

[Clare73]

I am talking about atonement which is found in both Lev. 4 and Lev. 5

Properly understood, there was an element of substitutionary atonement even in the sacrifices of worship and fellowship, because atonement is the basis of all worship and fellowship acceptable to God.

Lev. 4:32 “‘If someone brings a lamb as their sin offering, they are to bring a female without defect. 33 They are to lay their hand on its head and slaughter it for a sin offering at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered. 34 Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 35 They shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.
Lev. 16 takes some explaining:

First off: what “sins” are we talking about? We know from Lev.5 how unintentional sins are to be handled and from other scripture we know how direct disobedience against God sins are handled (death or banishment). Lev. 16 is for all other possible sins. These sins are ones you are not even sure you committed or are not sure they are even sins.

All the sins of the people were specifically confessed in Leviticus 16 and laid on the scapegoat.

The sins in Lev. 5 are very minor sins you do come to realize as sins, while in Lev. 16 you do not know.

Leviticus does not regard any sin as "minor."

However, Leviticus 16 references the Day of Atonement sacrifices, which is the foreshadowing of Christ.

Christ is foreshadowed in all the blood sacrifices.

Shadows are very weak representations of the reality they are a shadow of.

The OT types were not "weak" shadows.
There are parts of their nature and purpose that we can know no other way.

Lev. 5 maybe a better shadow of the reality. There is some stuff in Lev. 16 which helps a little in explaining what Christ did on the cross, but Christ is not trying to be the replacement for Lev. 16, since the sacrifice on the day of atonement did very little and would not “save” an individual.

Any sin for which they did not die, they were "saved" from death by sacrifice.

We are talking about the atonement sacrifice.

All blood sacrifice was related to atonement.

It is more than just one step so it is a process.

It was the regulations for administration.

No, I did not say that, those who go to hell are punished.
We are trying to define/understand atonement and looking at Lev. to do just that.

You would change "penalty/punishment" to "discipline" in Leviticus.

 

[zoidar]

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.

Seen it! I think it was interesting and entertaining. What I don't agree with is that Jesus birth and life is part of the redemption, but I agree that the crucifixion and the resurrection should be seen as a whole.

 

[bling]

Properly understood, there was an element of substitutionary atonement even in the sacrifices of worship and fellowship, because atonement is the basis of all worship and fellowship acceptable to God.

What element of substitution are you finding in the worship and fellowship sacrifice?

All the sins of the people were specifically confessed in Leviticus 16 and laid on the scapegoat.

Heb. 9: 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance….9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper….13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,

Heb. 10: 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Heb. 10:9 8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law.

Lev. 16 atonement did not replace the discipline and punishments for sins in all the chapters of Lev. up to lev. 16, so rebellious disobedient sinners were already dead or banished.

Leviticus does not regard any sin as "minor."

Do you see different sins requiring different disciplines and punishments? Minor sins are ones in which atonement can be made and God will forgive, while rebellious disobedience God is not said to forgive and there is no atonement process given for them.

 

[Clare73]

What element of substitution are you finding in the worship and fellowship sacrifice?

Although not for sin, they included bloody sacrifice, where bloody sin sacrifices were substitutionary atonement, the death of the animal substituting for the death of the sinner in atoning for the sin by death.

 

[Jonaitis]

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 reason Augustine never taught it directly was because the doctrine wasn't fully developed until the Reformation. Most people don't realize that doctrine was still raw in the early days of the Church, including theology proper. Debates concerning what constituted the Trinity was huge before Nicea, and many many Christians did not have the Nicene understanding of the Trinity for the first couple centuries, because the doctrine wasn't fully developed, despite the arguments by many today that they did understand it. Your common layperson in the first couple centuries did not have a strong grasp of the philosophical language the Nicene fathers used in their explanation of the ontology and economy of the three members in relation to each other. This is why we can't fault many of them for having an imperfect understanding of certain creedal beliefs. It wasn't fully developed and taught, and to charge many of them as heretics because it wasn't fully developed and taught is doing them injustice.

 

[zoidar]

The reason Augustine never taught it directly was because the doctrine wasn't fully developed until the Reformation. Most people don't realize that doctrine was still raw in the early days of the Church, including theology proper. Debates concerning what constituted the Trinity was huge before Nicea, and many many Christians did not have the Nicene understanding of the Trinity for the first couple centuries, because the doctrine wasn't fully developed, despite the arguments by many today that they did understand it. Your common layperson in the first couple centuries did not have a strong grasp of the philosophical language the Nicene fathers used in their explanation of the ontology and economy of the three members in relation to each other. This is why we can't fault many of them for having an imperfect understanding of certain creedal beliefs. It wasn't fully developed and taught, and to charge many of them as heretics because it wasn't fully developed and taught is doing them injustice.

I have to ask, if the Early Church didn't have these doctrines that were developed much later, how do we know they are correct?

One might think it would be better to stay with what the Early Church knew to be right. Concerning the things they didn't know, why do we have to know? Have we maybe given the many doctrines the wrong proportions to what really matters in a Christian life?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I have to ask, if the Early Church didn't have these doctrines that were developed much later, how do we know they are correct?

One might think it would be better to stay with what the Early Church knew to be right. Concerning the things they didn't know, why do we have to know? Have we maybe given the many doctrines the wrong proportions to what really matters in a Christian life?

Curiously, we do have the writings of the Bible where it is discussed at some length. The fact that early Christians were much more focused on other issues, of which some were major and many are now viewed as relatively insignificant, is not a reliable reflection of that which is of significance, but it is a reflection of early Christian culture within the Roman empire.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have to ask, if the Early Church didn't have these doctrines that were developed much later, how do we know they are correct?

One might think it would be better to stay with what the Early Church knew to be right. Concerning the things they didn't know, why do we have to know? Have we maybe given the many doctrines the wrong proportions to what really matters in a Christian life?

Indeed, for this reason I reject Penal Substitutionary Atonement as a serious error on the part of the Reformed branch of Protestantism; I was never comfortable within it, and as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (who is in the hospital in critical condition and has cancer, please pray for him) pointed out in his classic 2008 lecture, available on YouTube, Salvation in Christ, the images Penal Substitutionary Atonement associates with Christianity have done enormous harm; I would argue the doctrine has become counterproductive and alienates people from the faith.

It also is contrary to the unity of the Trinity. The Trinity is three persons, the uncreated Son and Word of God the only-begotten of the Father in eternity, the uncreated Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father, both partaking in the divine essence of the unorginate Father, thus all three sharing an essence and constiuting one God, being differentiated personally and hypostatically but not substantially, for each is God, and God is not divisible into parts nor a compound.

Thus, when the Son suffers in his human nature, because Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christology insist his humanity and divinity are consubstantially united on the basis of what is not assumed is not saved, the doctrine of consubstantial union leads us to Theopaschitism. And Christ did suffer, we cannot deny that, but what we can do is understand the superior way the early church fathers understood His passion. To quote Fr. John Behr, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s successor in teaching Eastern Christianity at Oxford, “God died to show us what it means to be human.”

This statement, in his lecture The Shocking Truth of Christian Orthodoxy, also from 2008, when Fr. John had recently replaced Fr. Thomas Hopko as dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary (which I regard as one of the best seminaries in the United States, along with Nashotah House, which is associated with the Episcopal Church and ACNA, and St. Joseph of Arimathea Seminary in Oakland, CA, associated with the Continuing Anglican Province of Christ the King), neatly summarizes the wide range of Patristic interpretations of the Passion of our Lord in a pithy way which helps us to understand the range of related heresies. I have linked to both videos many times in the past but if anyone hasn’t seen them, let me know (I think my CF.com blog has an article linking to them, if not, I will post one).

 

[Jonaitis]

I have to ask, if the Early Church didn't have these doctrines that were developed much later, how do we know they are correct?

One might think it would be better to stay with what the Early Church knew to be right. Concerning the things they didn't know, why do we have to know? Have we maybe given the many doctrines the wrong proportions to what really matters in a Christian life?

You may be on to something. I think we have given many doctrines the wrong proportion to what really matters in the Christian life, because much of theology does not profit in godliness (unless you use Augustine's argument from De doctrina christiana that all doctrine are facets in our growing love for God), but some may call me a pragmatist.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You may be on to something. I think we have given many doctrines the wrong proportion to what really matters in the Christian life, because much of theology does not profit in godliness (unless you use Augustine's argument from De doctrina christiana that all doctrine are facets in our growing love for God), but some may call me a pragmatist.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. The ECF's seem to have spent a lot of time and ink discussing very arcane issues such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[bling]

Although not for sin, they included bloody sacrifice, where bloody sin sacrifices were substitutionary atonement, the death of the animal substituting for the death of the sinner in atoning for the sin by death.

Where does scripture say that?

 

[Clare73]

Where does scripture say that?

Are you serious?

Study Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 17, and the NT Greek words propitiation (hilasmos, hilaskomai)
1 John 2:2, 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; and mercy-seat (hilasterion) Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:5.

 

[bling]

Are you serious?

Study Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 17, and the NT Greek words propitiation (hilasmos, hilaskomai)
1 John 2:2, 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; and mercy-seat (hilasterion) Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:5.

The words (hilasmos, hilaskomai, hilasterion ) do not mean substitution or instead of, they can be translated propitiation but that does not mean instead of or to substitute.

Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, there is nothing about being our replacement.

Is Jesus replacing our sins?

Jesus does take the place of the High Priest, but that is not us.

What does the atonement cover of the ark have to do with replacing us?

Romans 3;25

Paul talks about those before the crucifixion but you have to really study what he said:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished... (Rom. 3:25, NIV)

This verse does provide a lot of information about how sins prior to Christ going to the cross were handled.

First off: Paul is 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, just a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished”, but that also means 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 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” (you discipline your children and do not punish your children).

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for their 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.

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 a 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 before God.)

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I, who needs that blood outside of Christ to flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.