Ten Problems With Penal Substitution

[ACFaith.Com]

Hot off the press!

http://www.acfaith.com/penal.html

Here I point out ten difficulties with the most popular Western understanding of Jesus' death on the cross. Instead of making evident the significance of Jesus' death on the cross, the PS model of atonement raises insurmountable difficulties and distorts the image of God.

Vinnie

[spl_cadet]

1. The problem here is that you are following your own theology, not an orthodox one. The Protestants, Orthodox Churches, and the Catholic Church hold (and have held) that the sacrifice was a timeless one, which is why it is still forgiving us today. And you contradict Scripture with this argument anyway:
Romans 6:10
For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
2. I think it rather does. He dies, our sins are washed away, we can be closer to God now as a direct result. Rather simple imho.
3. :rofl: Your argument is like saying that we should just forgive a drug dealer (for example) and not have him serve time in prison. Now then, here again your unscriptural and unorthodox theology bites the dust.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
In other words, thanks to our sins, there had to be a death. We couldn't simply be forgiven.
4. We have gazillions of sins meriting death. Yes, God does have that death to pay them but what you don't quite realize is that if it were truly a extraction of punishment and no forgiveness, then we would have to die for the other gazillions of sins since there had only been one death, which technically should only have been usable for one sin period. It would be like Daniel owing 10,000 but the 1,000 payment causes it to be covered.
5. Romans 6:23 for starters. And isn't it funny how people were punished for doing things against God, which would mean not accepting that sacrifice? Show me an instance of a devout Christian (in NT, Jew in the OT) being punished.
6. Simple. It's a gift. It's like Daniel refusing to let that debt be paid for him.

I'll get to the others stuff later as I need to go to school now.

[ACFaith.Com]

A non-response. Not that I expected anything else.

1. The problem here is that you are following your own theology, not an orthodox one. The Protestants, Orthodox Churches, and the Catholic Church hold (and have held) that the sacrifice was a timeless one, which is why it is still forgiving us today. And you contradict Scripture with this argument anyway:

No, I disputed that notion itself as being problematic. I don't care who hold's to it. And I have no trouble contradicting scripture because scripture is not inerrant or infallible. Neither is official dogma of the RCC.

2. I think it rather does. He dies, our sins are washed away, we can be closer to God now as a direct result. Rather simple imho.

In that case you are wrong.

3. Your argument is like saying that we should just forgive a drug dealer (for example) and not have him serve time in prison. Now then, here again your unscriptural and unorthodox theology bites the dust.

I NEVER stated that. If you got that out of the text then I think you might have a reading comprehension problem. That or you just read it all too fast which seems probable given your lazyman-response here that isn't even worth the few minutes I am putting into it.

4. We have gazillions of sins meriting death. Yes, God does have that death to pay them but what you don't quite realize is that if it were truly a extraction of punishment and no forgiveness, then we would have to die for the other gazillions of sins since there had only been one death, which technically should only have been usable for one sin period. It would be like Daniel owing 10,000 but the 1,000 payment causes it to be covered.

That appears to directly violate the model of penal substitution I critiqued. How you can you, then, defend it with it?

5. Romans 6:23 for starters. And isn't it funny how people were punished for doing things against God, which would mean not accepting that sacrifice? Show me an instance of a devout Christian (in NT, Jew in the OT) being punished.

A non-response. Address the question. If Jesus paid the debt why do some people "pay it again".

6. Simple. It's a gift. It's like Daniel refusing to let that debt be paid for him.

Another non-response based upon the very problematic and naive notion of original sin. *yawn*

I'll get to the others stuff later as I need to go to school now.

If you have anything of substance to say I'll do my best to offer a timely response to it.

Vinnie

[spl_cadet]

Wow, heresy coming out the wazzoo!


No, I disputed that notion itself as being problematic. I don't care who hold's to it.

It's only problematic for your theology, not for anyone that I named.


And I have no trouble contradicting scripture because scripture is not inerrant or infallible.

How convenient. That little bit of theology let's you say whatever you want without worry. Would you mind keeping to at least a tiny bit of orthodoxy?


Neither is official dogma of the RCC.

1. No such thing as the RCC, it has never identified itself as such. That term came around as an Anglican insult (which rather ticks off the non-Latin rite members of the Church).
2. Is infallible actually.


In that case you are wrong.

I'm wrong about how my theology leads to God, a subjective opinion? Ok...

Have to get off now to avoid ticking off my teacher.

[Jaltus]

Instead of posting a link to a website (which is against the rules (www.theologyweb.com/forums/decorum) of TWeb), you should be posting the 10 problems.

Do not post on the board, in Private Message or email any content that are primarily for self-promotion or the advertising of any website, business, ministry, event or other entities such as a website link without prior consent of a moderator or administrator. Advertisements such as a website link including a brief description is welcome in profiles, journals and signature lines.

[Jaltus]

Oh, sorry, the reason I am saying it is against the rules here is because in order for one to engaged this question, one must go outside of TWeb. We do not want that to be a regular practice, so next time ask a mod (such as myself) first.

[ACFaith.Com]

Do not post on the board, in Private Message or email any content that are primarily for self-promotion or the advertising of any website, business, ministry, event or other entities such as a website link without prior consent of a moderator or administrator. Advertisements such as a website link including a brief description is welcome in profiles, journals and signature lines.

Sure htis includes "advertising" but that is not the point. I am not advertising. I am putting up an article I just wrote for discussion and consideration. I did so for this article at about seven different message boards. i am checking the rest now but so far nothing substantial in response. I've seen numerous links made on this site?

Several personal problems I have with posting the article here: text formatting. It would take too long to make everything bold, or italicized, or underlined etc. not to mention that my article would have needed three posts due to length considerations. Its not feasible or economical for me to convert my articles. But if I am not allowed to post them as such I won't post them at all (linked or in text). I'm sure no one will miss them.

Oh, sorry, the reason I am saying it is against the rules here is because in order for one to engaged this question, one must go outside of TWeb. We do not want that to be a regular practice, so next time ask a mod (such as myself) first.

Where is that at in the rules? Sorry, I must have missed it? I'll ask first if I decide to post another link to an article again.

Vinnie

[ACFaith.Com]

That little bit of theology let's you say whatever you want without worry. Would you mind keeping to at least a tiny bit of orthodoxy?

Sure, but penal substitution is hardly the official (tm) Christian view. See the distinction made between the doctrine of the atonement and theories of the atonement.

Vinnie

[Jaltus]

Hmmm, I am explaining the rules as they were explained to me. I'll ask for an admin to look at this.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 06:56 PM
ACFaith.Com:
Sure, but penal substitution is hardly the official (tm) Christian view. See the distinction made between the doctrine of the atonement and theories of the atonement.

Vinnie

I was referring to your disbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Let me guess, you are a non-trinitarian aren't you?

[ACFaith.Com]

Functionally, I accept the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus. Ontologically, well, that is a much more complicated issue though I admit it is hard to actually segregate "functional and ontological theologies".

Vinnie

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 08:00 PM
ACFaith.Com:

Functionally, I accept the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus. Ontologically, well, that is a much more complicated issue though I admit it is hard to actually segregate "functional and ontological theologies".

Vinnie

In plain English if you please.

[yxboom]

ACFaith in Jaltus' defense the rule that he is referring to is contained within #8

Please respect the wishes of the thread starter to keep a thread on topic when requested and do not post using all caps, this includes profiles, signatures and screen names. Debates (points for your position) made via weblink is not allowed. Weblinks may be used only as a point of reference or for further information regarding your position.

I believe the point was making your argument via weblink. It may have gotten confusing based on the advertising of weblinks however the rule is there and Jaltus was in reason to make his request.

[ACFaith.Com]

yxboom, even if the web link goes to your own material? I am making my argument with my material, not falling victim to the infromal argument from url fallacy. i will respect your wishes though.

This seems to be a fuzzy line though. I take it would have been acceptablee for me to post one argument of my ten in full here and then say, for more information see this?

Vinnie

[yxboom]

Actually if you take the spirit along with the comprised letter of the rules you will see that coupled with other guidelines that could not happen. Posts are limited to 12000 characters and 1 or 2 major points. You have 10. That would not fly. What would be better done is you take 1 or 2 points from your site, feel free to link to your site but keep the points to 1 or 2 as discussion progresses feel free to bring up the others but focus must remain on a single point or at most 2, not 10. There is no problem with sites being used for info such as yours in debate as if you said I would like to discuss X point made here at X link. So yes you could have made 1 argument from the ten and linked it for the rest but what it does is encourage the flow of discussion based on the addressing of the one point. :smile:

[George Blaisdell]

ACFaith.Com: writes:

Functionally, I accept the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus. Ontologically, well, that is a much more complicated issue though I admit it is hard to actually segregate "functional and ontological theologies".

Vinnie - Why on earth would you even imagine that you might want to segregate functional and ontological matters in Christianity? Do you really believe that it can function in one way but exist in another? This sounds liike a sure fire basis for hippocracy...

geo

[ACFaith.Com]

On an existential level, the functional statements are easy for me to embrace when I look at my "experiences with "Jesus/God". But I have trouble making the ontological statements but I am ever trying to work those out. Of course, its hard to make the functional without the ontological claims. If anything I would say Jesus functions as God. In my life and experiences, he does only what God can do. Thus, I call him God (ontologically) but I can't even begin to understand how God could become man. I have no trouble saying that right now and that doesn't separate functional from ontological Christologies but I do have some reservations still. Ergo, I called the ontological claims "complicated".

I just started embracing panentheis. I am wondering where it will lead me. I need to read some Tillich :)

Vinnie

[George Blaisdell]

Vinnie writes:

> On an existential level, the functional statements are easy for me to embrace when I look at my "experiences with "Jesus/God".

You receive the message, and proceed from there - Yet you probably are having trouble in 'spirit' knowing the difference between Christ and God, yes? And so when you try to give an accounting of your experience[s], it is hard to know if they are two or one, yes? And I would guess that you are experiencing the Holy Spirit, Who is leading you toward Christ, unto the Father... But I am only guessing...

> But I have trouble making the ontological statements but I am ever trying to work those out.

That is why there is Christ's Church, for within the communion of the Holy Body of Christ, you do not have to set your mind to such tasks for which it is so unsuited, but instead are freed to enter into the real work of purifying the heart, so as to give the vision of God that is clear. [Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God...] I spent quite a few years trying to "reinvent the wheel" of acconting for spiritual experiences that were utterly real, yet received in an utterly contaminated heart that had no clue as to what to do... Making for pretty easy pickings for delusional thinking, even in the face of my pretty good, if worldly, efforts to weed it out...

> Of course, its hard to make the functional without the ontological claims.

That was my point - And even more to the point, there is an ontology [a reality] behind the function [the doing].

> If anything I would say Jesus functions as God. In my life and experiences, he does only what God can do. Thus, I call him God (ontologically) but I can't even begin to understand how God could become man. I have no trouble saying that right now and that doesn't separate functional from ontological Christologies but I do have some reservations still.

It's not easy to figure all that stuff out for yourself, yes? That is why Christ instituted the Church at Pentecost... I utterly failed at it - Which is my only claim to fame - The claim of failure - And ended up being inwardly led to Orthodoxy, which is neither awed nor put off by such spiritual events...

> Ergo, I called the ontological claims "complicated".

They will only get more complicated! Our fallen brains are not suited for this kind of stuff!

> I just started embracing panentheis. I am wondering where it will lead me. I need to read some Tillich :)

I never read Tillich - And don't know the meaning of panentheis - But wondering leads to philosophy! [Aristotle: "Philosophy begins with wonder."]

geo

[Bill the Cat]

:bump: for new responses


:digup:

[Fideist345]

03-21-2003 @ 11:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42167#post42167)
ACFaith.Com:

I have no trouble saying that right now and that doesn't separate functional from ontological Christologies but I do have some reservations still. Ergo, I called the ontological claims "complicated".

Because you're still trying to make logical sense of belief? :)

I just started embracing panentheis. I am wondering where it will lead me. I need to read some Tillich :)

Vinnie

Let me know when you do. Otherwise, Happy Holidays!

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 06:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=346222#post346222)
Fideist345:

Because you're still trying to make logical sense of belief? :)

Let me know when you do. Otherwise, Happy Holidays!

Hey Fideist, ACFaith hasn't posted here since August. He probably won't ever read this.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 01:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=346272#post346272)
Amazing Rando:



Hey Fideist, ACFaith hasn't posted here since August. He probably won't ever read this.

??? Huh! Well, I'll be! Durn if you ain't right! Strange days! It came up in "new posts"... But then again, I'm now no longer Taoist either. :)


Thanks Rando.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 06:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=346310#post346310)
Fideist345:

??? Huh! Well, I'll be! Durn if you ain't right! Strange days! It came up in "new posts"... But then again, I'm now no longer Taoist either. :)


Thanks Rando.

So I see! Found the B'hai faith more to your liking? What do you find attractive about it?

By the way, might wanna change your sig line- it still says you're "not really a Taoist!"

[Bill the Cat]

I dug this thread up for input. JP has an article on his site and I wanted to see if he would contribute.

[Amazing Rando]

JP's already got a pretty hefty thread going on penal substitution located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&forumid=47&threadid=13486).

[Fideist345]

Today @ 01:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=346327#post346327)
Amazing Rando:



So I see! Found the B'hai faith more to your liking? What do you find attractive about it?

By the way, might wanna change your sig line- it still says you're "not really a Taoist!"

Hey! Except for Satanism, I like 'em all! :)