Why Substitutionary Atonement?

[oi_antz]

This is an odd thread.

Do you know why?

 

[Cappadocious]

I think it has to do with the goals of people involved in the thread. For one, do you have an answer in mind to the question you asked in the original post?

 

[oi_antz]

I think it has to do with the goals of people involved in the thread. For one, do you have an answer in mind to the question you asked in the original post?

I do, yes, but I want to make sure I am not unfair in having that opinion. I think people have been taught this, it is the only view of the gospel they have seen, and upon that understanding they have laid their faith. They cling to it because they believe it is their salvation. They do not like the basis of their salvation challenged, and they view with scepticism, heretical, anyone who presents a view of the gospel that contradicts their own.

 

[Cappadocious]

I would agree.

An important thing to keep in mind is that people will try to equivocate on the words "substitution" and "penal" and the Penal Substitution theory as such.

Proponents of PSA will say: "Now, don't you think there's some kind of substitution going on in the atonement? Well, that's all we mean by substitution. And you know how Christ died on a cross and those were used for punishment? Well, that's all we mean by penal. So you can go ahead and accept Penal Substitution now."

There are several variations of this where the common meaning of Penal Substitution is fudged in order to get you to accept something by that name.

However, the common meaning of Penal Substitution is this: The theory that God the Father had or wanted to punish sinners for the sins of the world, and that Jesus took the place of sinners and was punished in their place. And the content of the punishment is pain, estrangement, shame and death.

Any other theory where the substitution is different or the motive is different or the punishment is different is not the common meaning of PSA, and is some other stipulative meaning that has no long-standing historical or common-use basis, so there is no "true meaning" to recover.

 

[oi_antz]

I would agree.

An important thing to keep in mind is that people will try to equivocate on the words "substitution" and "penal" and the Penal Substitution theory as such.

Proponents of PSA will say: "Now, don't you think there's some kind of substitution going on in the atonement? Well, that's all we mean by substitution. And you know how Christ died on a cross and those were used for punishment? Well, that's all we mean by penal. So you can go ahead and accept Penal Substitution now."

There are several variations of this where the common meaning of Penal Substitution is fudged in order to get you to accept something by that name.

However, the common meaning of Penal Substitution is this: The theory that God the Father had or wanted to punish sinners for the sins of the world, and that Jesus took the place of sinners and was punished in their place. And the content of the punishment is pain, estrangement, shame and death.

Any other theory where the substitution is different or the motive is different or the punishment is different is not the common meaning of PSA, and is some other stipulative meaning that has no long-standing historical or common-use basis, so there is no "true meaning" to recover.

Thank you for establishing that.

 

[hedrick]

Any other theory where the substitution is different or the motive is different or the punishment is different is not the common meaning of PSA, and is some other stipulative meaning that has no long-standing historical or common-use basis, so there is no "true meaning" to recover.

I believe ideas of substitution were around long before PSA. So i don't think it's deceptive to say that there is substitution of some kind going on in the atonement. And I'm certainly not selling PSA.

 

[oi_antz]

I believe ideas of substitution were around long before PSA. So i don't think it's deceptive to say that there is substitution of some kind going on in the atonement. And I'm certainly not selling PSA.

Hedrick, can you please explain your use of the word "substitute" if apart from penalty? I understand substitution is to use something in place of the real thing. It seems as though maybe I have not seen the gospel the way you are viewing it. Thank you.

 

[Cappadocious]

i don't think it's deceptive to say that there is substitution of some kind going on in the atonement.

I don't think there's a substitution, I think there's a representation. But be that as it may, of course all substitution theories are not Penal. Rather, Penal Substitution is penal substitution.

 

[oi_antz]

But be that as it may, of course all substitution theories are not Penal.

Can you please explain this? I have only known Substitutionary Atonement as a view to transferring the penalty from one to another.

 

[Cappadocious]

Can you please explain this? I have only known Substitutionary Atonement as a view to transferring the penalty from one to another.

Well you might say that God demanded that we fill up our iniquity with righteousness, and since we were incapable of doing so, Christ "substituted himself" in our place and filled up our iniquity with his righteousness. In other words, we could only be saved by performing/being something we're not, and so Christ did it for us. It is a "substitution" in this sense.

Now, I think that Christ is being representational in such a case rather than substitutional. But you could fudge the word 'substitution' to fit in a pinch.

 

[oi_antz]

Well you might say that God demanded that we fill up our iniquity with righteousness, and since we were incapable of doing so, Christ "substituted himself" in our place and filled up our iniquity with his righteousness. In other words, we could only be saved by performing/being something we're not, and so Christ did it for us. It is a "substitution" in this sense.

Now, I think that Christ is being representational in such a case rather than substitutional. But you could fudge the word 'substitution' to fit in a pinch.

This does not immediately make sense to me. I understand what you are saying but I have no idea why you would believe it. Can you please explain it a bit more and show the scriptural basis? I have taken a view to the scriptures totally opposed to substitutionary atonement and entirely focussed on repentance/forgiveness since I have discovered all this. If there is any truth in substitutionary atonement doctrines, it needs to be rebuilt in me because all those beliefs have been dropped as I have discovered I did not learn it from studying the scriptures. So it's square one for me at this point of time.

 

[Cappadocious]

This does not immediately make sense to me. I understand what you are saying but I have no idea why you would believe it.

I was playing devil's advocate on behalf of the substitution theorist. I don't hold to a substitution account, myself.

Can you please explain it a bit more and show the scriptural basis?

I think we have a Scriptural basis for believing that Christ filled up unrighteousness with righteousness from every old testament sacrifice and the entire epistle to the Hebrews. What do you object to?

 

[oi_antz]

I was playing devil's advocate on behalf of the substitution theorist. I don't hold to a substitution account, myself.


I think we have a Scriptural basis for believing that Christ filled up unrighteousness with righteousness from every old testament sacrifice and the entire epistle to the Hebrews. What do you object to?

I can't object to this, you haven't provided anything. Please don't play devil's advocate, be honest. I want the truth here please.

 

[Cappadocious]

Okay. I think the language of substitution at all is misleading and unnecessary at best, heretical at worst. I don't believe that ancient Christianity and/or the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) hold to anything we'd recognize as Penal Substitution; and even if they did, I would still find it theologically confused and morally bankrupt. I think Penal Substitution is a heresy that only really came into popularity after the Reformed part of the Reformation.

 

[oi_antz]

Okay. I think the language of substitution at all is misleading and unnecessary at best, heretical at worst. I don't believe that ancient Christianity and/or the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) hold to anything we'd recognize as Penal Substitution; and even if they did, I would still find it theologically confused and morally bankrupt. I think Penal Substitution is a heresy that only really came into popularity after the Reformed part of the Reformation.

Thanks, this is what I have found too, and the purpose of this thread is to find out if there is any truth to it. Whenever I have raised it with Christians they get moody and don't give good reasons. I want to know if there is good reasons.

 

[hedrick]

Hedrick, can you please explain your use of the word "substitute" if apart from penalty? I understand substitution is to use something in place of the real thing. It seems as though maybe I have not seen the gospel the way you are viewing it. Thank you.

As far as I know, all theories of the atonement see Jesus as a substitute for us. He suffered either the punishment or at least the consequences for our sin. The question is why, and with what result. Those answers vary:

* God needed to punish someone in order to be able to forgive, or he would be unjust.
* Jesus accepted our punishment of death, but by rising broke the power of death, thus giving us life.
* Jesus accepted our punishment of death, but because he was not legitimately subject to that punishment, he canceled Satan’s right to punish us.

These are certainly not the only answers. Only the first is penal substitution in the usual sense, but they all involve Jesus as a substitute for us. In many of them he is a substitute not just in the negative sense of bearing our punishment but in the positive sense of defeating death and/or the power of sin on our behalf.

 

[muddleglum]

I am still just getting started on this topic

I'll give you something else to think about that might help. Off the top of my head.

God is Life. Rejecting Life results in the consequence of death. God, being true to Himself, who is truth, accepts that consequence. Note here that there is a double consequence of death. The second is that we cannot do what we ought because we are slaves of sin, which is one form of death. The first is that we already died when we first sinned. That second is important because God had to bring us to new Life. We had to become new creations in the image of Christ. (actually growing into that image, more and more).

Focusing on the first, the life of the flesh is in the blood. So the blood poured out on the earth (dust to dust, Adam, who was made of red clay shows this parable up) is from a victim that the person bringing it places his hands on to identify with. That was the substitution. So the consequence is complete! You, who had sacrificed the victim, died.

When we abide in Christ (and He in us) there again is an identity and the Lamb sacrificed from the beginning of the world takes our consequence.

 

[oi_antz]

I'll give you something else to think about that might help. Off the top of my head.

God is Life. Rejecting Life results in the consequence of death. God, being true to Himself, who is truth, accepts that consequence. Note here that there is a double consequence of death. The second is that we cannot do what we ought because we are slaves of sin, which is one form of death. The first is that we already died when we first sinned. That second is important because God had to bring us to new Life. We had to become new creations in the image of Christ. (actually growing into that image, more and more).

Focusing on the first, the life of the flesh is in the blood. So the blood poured out on the earth (dust to dust, Adam, who was made of red clay shows this parable up) is from a victim that the person bringing it places his hands on to identify with. That was the substitution. So the consequence is complete! You, who had sacrificed the victim, died.

When we abide in Christ (and He in us) there again is an identity and the Lamb sacrificed from the beginning of the world takes our consequence.

Thank you. I do not like mental gymnastics though when the gospel is very straightforward. Man chose to disobey God and to use knowledge of good and evil for his own fulfilment. God said He would not allow humans to live forever since they choose to use good and evil for their own appetites. He has blocked human ability to live forever, with mighty cherubium. He finds that there is still something valuable that He loves, so He gives us his own nature in human form. Should we decide to follow Him, use knowledge of good and evil in obedience, He will give fruit from the tree of life.

What you go on to suggest is that God must satisfy some fairly complicated legal conditions, apparently not able to simply decide to give fruit from the tree of life to whomever He decides. It is an interesting observation actually. Given the real simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ, why must people go and make it so complicated?

 

[oi_antz]

As far as I know, all theories of the atonement see Jesus as a substitute for us. He suffered either the punishment or at least the consequences for our sin. The question is why, and with what result. Those answers vary:

* God needed to punish someone in order to be able to forgive, or he would be unjust.
* Jesus accepted our punishment of death, but by rising broke the power of death, thus giving us life.
* Jesus accepted our punishment of death, but because he was not legitimately subject to that punishment, he canceled Satan’s right to punish us.

These are certainly not the only answers. Only the first is penal substitution in the usual sense, but they all involve Jesus as a substitute for us. In many of them he is a substitute not just in the negative sense of bearing our punishment but in the positive sense of defeating death and/or the power of sin on our behalf.

Thanks. I have noticed those premises too, during my experience with the doctrines. I see these statements are your own words, constructing that backdrop against which the gospel can be viewed as Substitutionary Atonement. I would like to see the scriptures that you believe indicate this backdrop to be accurate, if you are willing and able. Thank you.

 

[muddleglum]

Thank you. I do not like mental gymnastics though when the gospel is very straightforward. Man chose to disobey God and to use knowledge of good and evil for his own fulfilment. God said He would not allow humans to live forever since they choose to use good and evil for their own appetites. He has blocked human ability to live forever, with mighty cherubium. He finds that there is still something valuable that He loves, so He gives us his own nature in human form. Should we decide to follow Him, use knowledge of good and evil in obedience, He will give fruit from the tree of life.

What you go on to suggest is that God must satisfy some fairly complicated legal conditions, apparently not able to simply decide to give fruit from the tree of life to whomever He decides. It is an interesting observation actually. Given the real simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ, why must people go and make it so complicated?

I know that I'm a poor communicator. But, "fairly complicated legal conditions"? Legal? Wow. I seem to have outdone myself!
Why is it complicated? Are you just trying to insult or am I just that bad a communicator? I fail to see how death being a consequence of rejecting Life is complicated OR legal. It is simple logic.
I fail to see how "the life of the flesh is in the blood," which is perfectly good scripture, is complicated. Maybe legal to you. But it seems a rather simple statement of fact to me.
Perhaps you mean identity is complicated. Christ said if we don't abide in Him and He in us we can do nothing. That refers to identity. He also talked about eating His flesh, which is another way of His expressing identity with us. I could go on in this vein of identity because it goes throughout the N.T. Still, it is a rather simple concept. "I have been co-crucified with Christ," said Paul.

If you had complained that I dumbed it down, I would understand. As it is, I think I cannot communicate the simplest concepts.
And please reread your own statements. Cherubim? Could you explain that? "Knowledge of good and evil"? Could you explain that? Give fruit from the tree of life? Could you explain that? Try to explain those concepts to a non-Christian. "Why make your explanation so complicated," they probably would think. What do you think?

Christ still identifies with me as I abide by faith.