'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[Clare73]

I'm going to respond to a couple of things at the same time.

I've been thinking about our connection with Adam. I've commented on two models, one that Adam's sin is imputed to us, the other that we inherit a corrupted nature from Adam. My sense is that imputation is too much like legal fiction, but that there is a more Biblical way of speaking of what may ultimately be the same thing.
But first a detail. Here's an interesting comment on Luke 11:50, from the Word commentary: 'Monumental tombs are normally, and rightly, taken to celebrate the life of the deceased; the Lukan polemic here interprets the tomb building as rather a celebration of the death (murder) of the prophets involved: “your fathers perpetrated the murder and you celebrate it.”'

Nevertheless, I do think there's a sense that in continuing to sin, we become part of what Clare calls the "family business" of sin. I wouldn't call that imputation, however, since imputation suggests giving someone a status that they haven't earned.

Scripture is not a matter of "suggestions."
It is a matter of grammar and what is stated or correctly inferred.

And you are not reckoning with two things in the text:

1) Sin is transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4), and is the cause of all death (Ro 6:23; Ge 2:17), but no sin was taken into account when there was no law to transgress between Adam and Moses, so no one was guillty of sin during that time, yet all died anyway, proving they were guilty of someone's sin.
That is the specific argument of the text.

2) Our reception of Adam's guilt is paralleled to our reception of Christ's righteousness.
There is no wiggle room in the text.
If Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, then so is Adam's sin.
That is the specific declaration of the text, of whose plain words there is no way around.

Call it "reception" if you like that better than "imputation."
But that's just foolish.

Why do we resist the text?
Why do we need it to agree with human reasoning instead of being satisfied with Biblical reasoning?

In this case we have earned it. Perhaps the closest modern legal analogy is conspiracy. If a group is part of a conspiracy, they become guilty of each other's acts. We're all part of a conspiracy to sin.

The OT, particularly, reflects a tradition in which children and parents are closely identified with each other, and what one does affects the other. Ezek 18 does indeed protest this. But I don't think we can allow that one passage to completely remove the whole Biblical sense of people being involved in each other. Ezek 18 reminds us that this involvement doesn't put us into a hopeless situation where there's no way to escape what our parents did. Nor can being the child of righteous parents ultimately save us if we rebel against God. But still, Rom 5 is based on the concept of solidarity. We are involved in each other. Think of John Donne's "No Man is an Island," and Christians bearing each others burdens. That solidarity can be established by descent, by common faith, and even by common behavior. Ezek 18 reminds us of the limitations of solidarity. But Ezek 18 is not an endorsement of modern American individualism, where we each take our own path to (or away from) God on our own.

I would say that Rom 5:12 ff invokes this concept of solidarity. I wouldn't quite say Adam's sin is imputed to us. That suggests a legal fiction. I prefer Clare's concept of the family business. We are involved in the racial business of sin, of which Adam is the founder. As such, Adam's sin is in some sense our own, though not so directly that God would punish us for it if that were our only problem. But this involvement is not unjust, as 5:12 reminds us, since we have also sinned. We're part of the conspiracy. Ezek 18 doesn't tell us that no such solidarity exists, but rather that it has limits. We can get out of it. In this case the way out is God's grace. God's grace working through faith in Christ moves us from solidarity with Adam to solidarity with Christ.

Does Rom 5:18 say that we are all justified? It certainly seems to. However again, I would point out that there's a difference in our connection with Adam and our connection with Christ. We are physical descendants of Adam. We are not physical descendants of Christ. We are Christ's through faith. Paul does use "all" in a number of places when speaking of salvation. I would say it's not impossible that he was a universalist, and that 5:18 means what it says. However it's also possible that there was an implicit limitation to those who have faith. After all, this passage continues into 6, which speaks of the way we are united with Christ.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

They all have huge problems and inconsistencies, so why not come up with one that works.

I don't believe the wheel needs to be re-invented. Neither do I believe in "new" theology, especially when or where it dismisses two thousand or so years of biblical interpretation. Just sayin'!

 

[hedrick]

Scripture is not a matter of "suggestions."
It is a matter of grammar and what is stated or correctly inferred.

And you are not reckoning with two things in the text:

1) Sin is transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4), and is the cause of all death (Ro 6:23; Ge 2:17), but no sin was taken into account when there was no law to transgress between Adam and Moses, so no one was guillty of sin during that time, yet all died anyway, proving they were guilty of someone's sin.
That is the specific argument of the text.

This text is a difficult one. Commentators have varying suggestions. Yours, however is not one of them. If normal human sins have no effect before the Law, how could Adam's? He was before the Law as well.

It makes more sense to say that the Law changes the way God treats sin, but sin always resulted in death. Paul's view of Law is complex. It makes our situation both better and worse. It's better in the sense that it's the start of God's plan to deal with sin. But it's worse because once God set up rules to help deal with sin, we found ourselves afoul of them. But sin was alway there, and it always caused death.

2) Our reception of Adam's guilt is paralleled to our reception of Christ's righteousness.
There is no wiggle room in the text.
If Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, then so is Adam's sin.
That is the specific declaration of the text, of whose plain words there is no way around.

You keep treating the text as if it said that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. The problem is that it doesn't. You keep talking about the plain words but nothing you've ever pointed to has said anything like imputation. I just looked through the text of Romans, and it doesn't refer to Christ's righteousness at all. It says that faith is reckoned as righteousness, but nothing about Christ's righteousness being imputed to us.

Your interpretation is the result of a fairly complex theological analysis, resulting in the doctrine of imputed righteousness. This conclusion is not directly present in the text, but is the result of many years of grappling with a wide variety of texts, trying to make sense of them. Until you realize that, it's hopeless to talk with you, because you look at the Paul's words but see Protestant tradition, and don't seem to be able to distinguish them.

And in fact you see only a specific kind of Protestant tradition. The reason I cited Calvin is that he is normally considered the originator of the Protestant version of penal satisfaction. The fact that the originator of your own view rejects the idea of imputed guilt should at least give you cause for careful examination.

Rom 6 makes it clear how it is that Christ deals with our sin. Through union with Christ we experience death to sin and new life.

Paul certainly sets up a parallel, or more properly an antithesis, between Adam and Christ. But I'm not convinced that he was thinking of the specific way in which sin and salvation got to us. Rather, the thought that's clearest in the text is that just as Adam originates sin and death, Christ originates justification. Christ is the source of the new man, as Adam is the source of the old one.

I don't see anything in the text that demands that death and salvation are transmitted in the same way. After all, we are natural children of Adam, and adopted children of God. We get our heritage from the two in different ways: in one case through birth and in the other through faith.

Call it "reception" if you like that better than "imputation."
But that's just foolish.

Why do we resist the text?
Why do we need it to agree with human reasoning instead of being satisfied with Biblical reasoning?

I don't think you're distinguishing your own reasoning and Scripture.

 

[Butch5]

Did they die the day they ate of it?

Yes, they did.

 

[Butch5]

Of course you do , you have dug yourself a hole and admitting error now is painful , sins are visited upon offspring , and Christ declared even the blood of Abel and the rest of the prophets shall be required of "this generation " ! That's right God judged the nation for nationally rejecting all the prophets even before thousands of them were even born !

It's hereditary judgement for ancestral sin , and it is scriptural .

Are you sure "this Generation" refers to the nation?

 

[Butch5]

You're kidding, right?

Jesus disagreed with the Sadducees [post=62758685]here[/post].

And penal substitution is his revelation (Heb 1:1-2) which is the NT, given [post=62647466]here[/post] in Ro 3:25-26.

So in Jesus revelation (Heb 10:1-2) which is the NT, what the apostles record Jesus saying is irrelevant?
Thanks for making clear your view of the word of God written.

However, you are wrong again.
The book of Hebrews reveals those in the New Covenant have come to God, the judge of all men,
and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and
to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." (Heb 12:23-24)

Spirits of righteous men - pre-Christian believers, such as Abel (Heb 11:4) and Noah (Heb 11:7).
Spirits - because they are waiting for the resurrection, as Jesus said Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were.
Righteous - because God credited their faith to them as righteousness, as he did to Abraham (Ro 4:3).

Actual justification was not accomplished, however, until Christ made it complete by his death on the cross (Heb 11:40; Ro 3:24-26, 4:23-25).

Do you expect this Sadducee foolishness to be taken seriously?

If you can't trace the doctrine back to the apostles then it's not Biblical. It really is a simple matter. We don't even need to look at the Scriptures. The idea of Penal substitution doesn't appear in the church until the Reformers, thus it is a new doctrine.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If you can't trace the doctrine back to the apostles then it's not Biblical. It really is a simple matter. We don't even need to look at the Scriptures. The idea of Penal substitution doesn't appear in the church until the Reformers, thus it is a new doctrine.

You're contradicting yourself here. I agree with the first two sentences. But then rather than the apostles, the biblical test switches to whether or not it appears in the first few hundred years of the Church, of early Church father writings. The Reformation didn't take place yesterday, 500+ years is quite some time ago, nearly as old as the printing press. So let's back up to your first statement and go from there.

 

[Butch5]

You're contradicting yourself here. I agree with the first two sentences. But then rather than the apostles, the biblical test switches to whether or not it appears in the first few hundred years of the Church, of early Church father writings. The Reformation didn't take place yesterday, 500+ years is quite some time ago, nearly as old as the printing press. So let's back up to your first statement and go from there.

There's no contradiction. Reformation occurred about 1500 years after Christ. That means there was 1500 years without the idea of Penal substitution. It's not even the second teaching but rather the third. The Reformers simply tweaked Anselm's Satisfaction model. An idea that has been changed twice from the original cannot be the original. Thus Penal Substitution isn't Biblical. I do find it interesting though that the Reformers who tried so hard to distance themselves from the Catholic Church took a completely Catholic doctrine to heart.

 

[ForceofTime]

You say: “…in requiring a satisfaction to His justice and inflicting the punishment that was due to sin”, so who is due that punishment? (You cannot punish sin?)

Hi, Bling. Just to be clear, I was quoting James Buchanan from the article.

Righteousness has to do with right behavior (doing the right thing). Is being just also being righteous? The Bible gives examples of judges being just and also not being just, so is it ever “just” to punish the innocent and allow the guilty to go free?

God always does the right thing. God is just and He is righteous. The Bible only gives examples of God being just; He always punishes justly and He always determines innocence and guilt justly.

Would we not have to fairly and justly be punished for our disobedience in order to stand justified?

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, accomplishes this for those that are His.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

There's no contradiction. Reformation occurred about 1500 years after Christ. That means there was 1500 years without the idea of Penal substitution.

As though the Reformation were not a recovery of Biblical truths, a turning back to the Scripture. As though the "Church" had been faithful to Scripture for all of those 1500 years. As though the "Church" had exhausted exposited in writing every verse of Scripture, and exhaustively wrote a complete systematic theology touching every issue. Of course this would be all written on parchment or vellum under candlelight and daylight with crude writing instruments. And then there is the defense of the faith, I suppose they covered the entire scope of apologetics in those years before the printing press too. Hardly my friend, and I hope you'll actually consider these things before responding.

It's not even the second teaching but rather the third. The Reformers simply tweaked Anselm's Satisfaction model. An idea that has been changed twice from the original cannot be the original. Thus Penal Substitution isn't Biblical.

Sorry but your line of reasoning does not follow, have you considered the notion that both could be biblical, because they pertain to different aspects of the same doctrine?

I do find it interesting though that the Reformers who tried so hard to distance themselves from the Catholic Church took a completely Catholic doctrine to heart.

Maybe that's because you would have us to believe that the Reformers rejected everything taught by the Catholic Church up to that point and time in history. That's certainly not the case, all of the Reformers were as Catholic as can be on the doctrine of the Trinity, and that's just one example, because the Reformation theology embraces, at minimum the first two Catholic creeds, not to mention, for example, John Calvin's upmost respect and admiration, even borrowing from the Catholic Doctor of Grace St. Augustine. There is a good deal of respect for other Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas among some Reformed believers like R.C. Sproul for example. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Reformers would give credence to St. Anselm or any Catholic where we believe they were true and faithful to Scripture.

 

[Arcoe]

I'm going to respond to a couple of things at the same time.

I've been thinking about our connection with Adam. I've commented on two models, one that Adam's sin is imputed to us, the other that we inherit a corrupted nature from Adam. My sense is that imputation is too much like legal fiction, but that there is a more Biblical way of speaking of what may ultimately be the same thing.

But first a detail. Here's an interesting comment on Luke 11:50, from the Word commentary: 'Monumental tombs are normally, and rightly, taken to celebrate the life of the deceased; the Lukan polemic here interprets the tomb building as rather a celebration of the death (murder) of the prophets involved: “your fathers perpetrated the murder and you celebrate it.”'

Nevertheless, I do think there's a sense that in continuing to sin, we become part of what Clare calls the "family business" of sin. I wouldn't call that imputation, however, since imputation suggests giving someone a status that they haven't earned. In this case we have earned it. Perhaps the closest modern legal analogy is conspiracy. If a group is part of a conspiracy, they become guilty of each other's acts. We're all part of a conspiracy to sin.

The OT, particularly, reflects a tradition in which children and parents are closely identified with each other, and what one does affects the other. Ezek 18 does indeed protest this. But I don't think we can allow that one passage to completely remove the whole Biblical sense of people being involved in each other. Ezek 18 reminds us that this involvement doesn't put us into a hopeless situation where there's no way to escape what our parents did. Nor can being the child of righteous parents ultimately save us if we rebel against God. But still, Rom 5 is based on the concept of solidarity. We are involved in each other. Think of John Donne's "No Man is an Island," and Christians bearing each others burdens. That solidarity can be established by descent, by common faith, and even by common behavior. Ezek 18 reminds us of the limitations of solidarity. But Ezek 18 is not an endorsement of modern American individualism, where we each take our own path to (or away from) God on our own.

I would say that Rom 5:12 ff invokes this concept of solidarity. I wouldn't quite say Adam's sin is imputed to us. That suggests a legal fiction. I prefer Clare's concept of the family business. We are involved in the racial business of sin, of which Adam is the founder. As such, Adam's sin is in some sense our own, though not so directly that God would punish us for it if that were our only problem. But this involvement is not unjust, as 5:12 reminds us, since we have also sinned. We're part of the conspiracy. Ezek 18 doesn't tell us that no such solidarity exists, but rather that it has limits. We can get out of it. In this case the way out is God's grace. God's grace working through faith in Christ moves us from solidarity with Adam to solidarity with Christ.

Does Rom 5:18 say that we are all justified? It certainly seems to. However again, I would point out that there's a difference in our connection with Adam and our connection with Christ. We are physical descendants of Adam. We are not physical descendants of Christ. We are Christ's through faith. Paul does use "all" in a number of places when speaking of salvation. I would say it's not impossible that he was a universalist, and that 5:18 means what it says. However it's also possible that there was an implicit limitation to those who have faith. After all, this passage continues into 6, which speaks of the way we are united with Christ.

Hedrick, I find your statements much easier to grasp than just flat out stating we are born under Adam's condemnation. As Adam had the choice of which tree to eat, we must also make this choice for ourselves. In the sense we choose to eat of the wrong tree, just as Adam did, does put us in the same condition as Adam; however, in keeping with Ezekiel 18, each man is condemned and will die on account of his own sins. It is the day we eat of this tree, we will surely die, not at birth.

Romans 5:12 -
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Paul said sin entered the world through one man, or one man was the first to sin, and thus sin entered the world in this way. But death was not brought about through Adam, but THROUGH SIN as this passage states. And the reason death spread to all men, is not because of Adam, but as Paul said, because all have sinned. All men have eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Every man is guilty of Adam's sin, when, as Adam, eats from the wrong tree. Adam's sin does not mean this sin was exclusively Adam's and it belonged to him. To be guilty of Adam's sin is to commit the same sin he did, which is disobedience to God and eating that which is pleasant to eyes, and desirable to make one wise, or, that which puts self (which leads to death) before God (Who is Life).

 

[Butch5]

As though the Reformation were not a recovery of Biblical truths, a turning back to the Scripture. As though the "Church" had been faithful to Scripture for all of those 1500 years. As though the "Church" had exhausted exposited in writing every verse of Scripture, and exhaustively wrote a complete systematic theology touching every issue. Of course this would be all written on parchment or vellum under candlelight and daylight with crude writing instruments. And then there is the defense of the faith, I suppose they covered the entire scope of apologetics in those years before the printing press too. Hardly my friend, and I hope you'll actually consider these things before responding.

Are you suggesting that church was in error until the Reformation? he point is it wasn't taught. You don't go 1500 and all of sudden get the correct doctrine.

To paraphrase Tertullian, You can't have false doctrine until you have doctrine, therefore whatever is first is correct. Penal substitution is 3rd, not 1st.

Sorry but your line of reasoning does not follow, have you considered the notion that both could be biblical, because they pertain to different aspects of the same doctrine?

There's nothing wrong with the logic. It's not both because Penal Substitution contradicts Scripture.

Maybe that's because you would have us to believe that the Reformers rejected everything taught by the Catholic Church up to that point and time in history. That's certainly not the case, all of the Reformers were as Catholic as can be on the doctrine of the Trinity, and that's just one example, because the Reformation theology embraces, at minimum the first two Catholic creeds, not to mention, for example, John Calvin's upmost respect and admiration, even borrowing from the Catholic Doctor of Grace St. Augustine. There is a good deal of respect for other Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas among some Reformed believers like R.C. Sproul for example. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Reformers would give credence to St. Anselm or any Catholic where we believe they were true and faithful to Scripture.

But he wasn't. Anselm did the same thing the Reformers did, decided he knew better than the 1000 years of Christians before him. Also holding the Catholic teaching (Augustine) in the Trinity incorrect.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Are you suggesting that church was in error until the Reformation? he point is it wasn't taught. You don't go 1500 and all of sudden get the correct doctrine.

There have always been people of error in the Church, even during the apostles time, shoot all we have to do is read Paul's letters and learn about what Christians in the Church were saying and doing even then! I do not subscribe to the notion of inerrant people, whether leaders of not, and people make up the "Church" body, over which Christ is the head.

To paraphrase Tertullian, You can't have false doctrine until you have doctrine, therefore whatever is first is correct. Penal substitution is 3rd, not 1st.

I could argue your point, but instead, rather point out that whatever is first, is not necessary final, there are 66 books in the Protestant canon afterall.

There's nothing wrong with the logic. It's not both because Penal Substitution contradicts Scripture.

You said it, so I guess that settles it, by the authority vested in Butch.

But he wasn't. Anselm did the same thing the Reformers did, decided he knew better than the 1000 years of Christians before him. Also holding the Catholic teaching (Augustine) in the Trinity incorrect.

I rest my case, you hung yourself there, sorry can't help ya.

 

[Arcoe]

"For just as (in the same way) through the disobdience of the one man (first Adam), the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man (second Adam), the many will be made righteous." (Ro 5:19)

How do you explain Paul's use of 'many' and not 'all', when speaking of Adam's disobedience?

Paul was saying, in the same way, that is, through the disobedience of one man, it is through the disobedience of many by which they are made sinners.

Also, in the same way, that is, through the obedience of one man, it is through the obedience of many by which they will be made righteous.

And in the very next chapter, Paul confirms this.

Romans 6:16 -
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin (disobedience) leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

 

[cygnusx1]

Are you sure "this Generation" refers to the nation?

yes , and the blood of Abel and the rest of the Prophets was required of them.

Judgment is often nationally dealt with , read Lamentations

 

[Butch5]

yes , and the blood of Abel and the rest of the Prophets was required of them.

Judgment is often nationally dealt with , read Lamentations

Was the blood of able required of the apostles and believers in that generation?

A generation doesn't have to mean a group of people all living at the same time. It means something generated. Term is used in Scripture of groups of people, such as the generation of the wicked.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Mat 23:33 KJV)

2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed. (Psa 112:2 KJV)

I suspect He is using Generation this way.

 

[Arcoe]

yes , and the blood of Abel and the rest of the Prophets was required of them.

Judgment is often nationally dealt with , read Lamentations

So, was the the blood of Abel was required of the disciples, for they were certainly part of that generation and that nation?

Or do you think it was required of those who continued in the same sin as their fathers?

Ezekiel 18 -
14 “If, however, he begets a son who sees all the sins which his father has done, and considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains, nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone, nor withheld a pledge, nor robbed by violence,
but has given his bread to the hungry and covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor and not received usury or increase, but has executed My judgments and walked in My statutes—he shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live!

It is the same with those who commit the same sin as Adam, that is, disobedience to God. In the day they disobey God, they shall surely die.

 

[ForceofTime]

Was the blood of able required of the apostles and believers in that generation?

So, was the the blood of Abel was required of the disciples, for they were certainly part of that generation and that nation?

It was paid by Christ on the Cross, whose blood spoke better things than that of Abel.

A generation doesn't have to mean a group of people all living at the same time. It means something generated. Term is used in Scripture of groups of people, such as the generation of the wicked.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Mat 23:33 KJV)

2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed. (Psa 112:2 KJV)

I suspect He is using Generation this way.

Or do you think it was required of those who continued in the same sin as their fathers?

Ezekiel 18 -
14 “If, however, he begets a son who sees all the sins which his father has done, and considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains, nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone, nor withheld a pledge, nor robbed by violence,
but has given his bread to the hungry and covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor and not received usury or increase, but has executed My judgments and walked in My statutes—he shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live!

It is the same with those who commit the same sin as Adam, that is, disobedience to God. In the day they disobey God, they shall surely die.

I don't think the Romans were as discriminating in 70 AD or Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC.

 

[cygnusx1]

Was the blood of able required of the apostles and believers in that generation?

A generation doesn't have to mean a group of people all living at the same time. It means something generated. Term is used in Scripture of groups of people, such as the generation of the wicked.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Mat 23:33 KJV)

2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed. (Psa 112:2 KJV)

I suspect He is using Generation this way.

The apostles were not guilty of rejecting Christ , it was the rest , and yes the blood of Abel and the prophets was required of them , you simply have no answer how The Lord can impute this blame when obviously Abel was long since gone from the scene even before the Nation of Israel was formed .

Imputed guilt is the only answer

 

[bottomofsandal]

It was paid by Christ on the Cross, whose blood spoke better things than that of Abel.

AMEN to that brother !

We sing about POWER in the blood, and being under the blood of Christ, even a fountain filled with blood !!! Are some folks not singing these wonderful hymns ?


There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains, lose all their guilty stains;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.


Colossians 1:19-22

New King James Version (NKJV)

19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—