Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems with Penal Substitution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    In Calvinism, both doctrines are tied together.




    According to Calvin, Christ suffered in hell. See Calvin's institutes of the Christian religion -



    The Catholic church, along with Lutheranism, reject Calvin's doctrine of the suffering Christ in hell.

    JM
    My point was simply that it is possible to hold to penal substitution while not holding to the doctrine of Christ suffering in hell.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      Actually, Lutheran theology teaches something like this: That Christ took the penalty of sin by suffering and dying on the cross, "descended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell, and took from the devil all his might"*, after which he was raised by the Father to His right hand. Those who have faith in Christ and His work and are baptised into Christ are imputed with Christ's righteousness and receive the Holy Spirit. Their sinful inclinations and nature (i.e original sin) still remain, but they are not held accountable for them, and the Holy Spirit creates and begins to nurture a new nature in them.

      Source: Defense of the Augsburg Confession

      32] In reference to original sin we therefore hold nothing differing either from Scripture or from the Church catholic, but cleanse from corruptions and restore to light most important declarations of Scripture and of the Fathers, that had been covered over by the sophistical controversies of modern theologians. For it is manifest from the subject itself that modern theologians have not noticed what the Fathers meant when they spake of defect [lack of original righteousness]. 33] But the knowledge of original sin is necessary. For the magnitude of the grace of Christ cannot be understood [no one can heartily long and have a desire for Christ, for the inexpressibly great treasure of divine favor and grace which the Gospel offers], unless our diseases be recognized. [As Christ says Matt. 9:12; Mark 2:17: They that are whole need not a physician.] The entire righteousness of man is mere hypocrisy [and abomination] before God, unless we acknowledge that our heart is naturally 34] destitute of love, fear, and confidence in God [that we are miserable sinners who are in disgrace with God]. For this reason the prophet Jeremiah 31:19, says: After that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh. Likewise Ps. 116:11: I said in my haste, All men are liars, i.e., not thinking aright concerning God.

      35] Here our adversaries inveigh against Luther also because he wrote that "Original sin remains after Baptism." They add that this article was justly condemned by Leo X. But His Imperial Majesty will find on this point a manifest slander. For our adversaries know in what sense Luther intended this remark that original sin remains after Baptism. He always wrote thus, namely, that Baptism removes the guilt of original sin, although the material, as they call it, of the sin, i.e., concupiscence, remains. He also added in reference to the material that the Holy Ghost, given through Baptism, begins to mortify the concupiscence, and creates new movements [a new light, a new sense and spirit] in man. 36] In the same-manner, Augustine also speaks, who says: Sin is remitted in Baptism, not in such a manner that it no longer exists, but so that it is not imputed. Here he confesses openly that sin exists, i.e., that it remains, although it is not imputed. And this judgment was so agreeable to those who succeeded him that it was recited also in the decrees. Also against Julian, Augustine says: The Law, which is in the members, has been annulled by spiritual regeneration, and remains in the mortal flesh. It has been annulled because the guilt has been remitted in the Sacrament, by which believers are born again; but it remains, because it produces desires, against which believers contend. 37] Our adversaries know that Luther believes and teaches thus, and while they cannot reject the matter they nevertheless pervert his words, in order by this artifice to crush an innocent man.

      © Copyright Original Source



      http://bookofconcord.org/defense_2_o...sin.php#para32


      *http://bookofconcord.org/sd-descent.php
      Some questions to consider.

      1) Where does scripture teach that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner? Rom 3:28?

      2) How can you be sure that such passages actually teach what Luther thought those passages mean, when nobody (or hardly anyone) before Luther thought those passages meant what Luther thought they meant?

      3) If those passages can be explained within Lutheranism, whereby you are subjectively persuaded of the veracity of such explanations, how then do you explain passages that say faith alone does not justify, such as James 2:24? Or faith without love is worthless, in 1 Cor 13:13?

      4) Why is there any need for imputation of Christ's righteousness when the sinner is regenerated by the Holy Spirit?

      5) What does the imputation of Christ's righteousness actually mean? Does it mean God the Father speaks, or judges? And if so, why would the Father do such an act, when the Father has infinite power to create all things and is thereby able to re-create the sinner as righteous?

      6) If Christ's righteousness is imputed, why not the Holy Spirit's righteousness, and/or that of the Father's righteousness as well?

      7) To selectively quote Augustine only means Lutheranism is based upon quote mining a Church father. Why would one consider Lutheranism defended through the use of quote mining, when the Lutheran doctrine of imputation is better defended by citing and explaining scripture along with explanations of Church fathers on those same texts which align with Lutheran doctrine?

      8) If Lutheranism has no recourse to the above sound method of using both scripture and the church fathers, why then believe Lutheranism is anything more than the invention of Luther alone, made apart from what has been revealed?

      9) Why believe any Lutheran theology when Luther had no authority to proclaim his new theology?

      10) Why believe any of the reformers when no reformer had any authority to make up a new theology?

      11) Why believe the reformers were actually reformers and reforming the church when church history is so thoroughly Catholic and not reformed, Calvinist, or Baptist?

      12) Why believe the Calvinist, or Lutheran doctrines on the Eucharist (or penal substitution) and reject the Catholic doctrines, when 1) Calvin and Luther disagreed with each other and 2) neither had any authority, and 3) those reformed doctrines were not verified by any authoritative Church councils?

      13) Where does scripture say faith is an instrument, as required by the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone?

      14) If faith is an instrument, what sort of instrument is it? Is faith like a spanner, or a veil?

      15) If faith is an instrument, are hope and love also instruments? Please explain.

      16) If faith, and/or hope and love are instruments, what is the distinction between those as instruments and those as virtues given by God?

      JM
      Last edited by JohnMartin; 06-19-2016, 07:25 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
        My point was simply that it is possible to hold to penal substitution while not holding to the doctrine of Christ suffering in hell.
        Maybe its possible, but then again its possible to hold to anything. Penal substitution is illogical, so holding to, or rejecting Christ suffering in hell is only another option within an invented theory. I can see the logic of Calvin thinking Christ suffered in hell. If Christ is the substitute for sinners, then it is fitting that Christ went to suffer in hell, for that is what happens to sinners. If Christ substitutes for sinners then He must act like a sinner and go where sinners go.

        Of course Christ was not a substitute, so He need not go to hell where sinners go.

        JM

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          Maybe its possible, but then again its possible to hold to anything. Penal substitution is illogical, so holding to, or rejecting Christ suffering in hell is only another option within an invented theory. I can see the logic of Calvin thinking Christ suffered in hell. If Christ is the substitute for sinners, then it is fitting that Christ went to suffer in hell, for that is what happens to sinners. If Christ substitutes for sinners then He must act like a sinner and go where sinners go.

          Of course Christ was not a substitute, so He need not go to hell where sinners go.

          JM
          Even in Christus Victor, Christ went to hell, breaking the bars asunder and letting the captives there go free.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            Even in Christus Victor, Christ went to hell, breaking the bars asunder and letting the captives there go free.
            Remembering back to my days in Catechism classes (nearly 30 years back) I recall being taught that Christ went into hell/sheol and preached the Gospel so that those who died before He came would have the opportunity to respond and be saved. (it was obviously phrased to a level for 8 year olds to understand)
            Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
            1 Corinthians 16:13

            "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
            -Ben Witherington III

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Even in Christus Victor, Christ went to hell, breaking the bars asunder and letting the captives there go free.
              The hell where Christ went was not the hell of the damned, but the place of the Patriarchs who had already been saved by grace. The hell of Luther and Calvin was not the hell of the church fathers. The Christ of the reformers was not the Christ of the church fathers, the scriptures, nor of reason. The reformation invented a new theologies and anthroplogies, contrary to scripture, reason and tradition, in the following areas -

              1) Sacerdotal theology - restricting the priesthood to that of Christ and believers through baptism, and the removal of the ordained priesthood. The ordained priesthood is found in scripture, and tradition.

              2) soteriology - salvation is reduced to justification by faith alone, and followed by sanctification by work of the HS. The distinction between justification and sanctification in an invention. The Protestant Christ justifies by faith alone, within the new, reformation theory of penal substitution.

              3) Ecclesiology - denying the need for apostolic succession, and the authority of the church councils, and reducing the Church down to whatever each reformer thought.

              2) Revelation - reducing what has been revealed by God, down to what is found only in scripture.

              3) Eschatology - removal of purgatory.

              4) sacramental theology - removal of the seven sacraments and substituting those sacraments for two, or three, and then replacing the correct, Catholic sacramental theology for the new, invented reformed, sacramental theologies. for example, the Eucharist was changed to consubstantiation, or impanation, against transubstantiation. Baptism was reduced from the cause of regeneration, to that of symbol of faith administered to adults.

              5) A new iconoclasm - icons were denied by Luther.

              6) Communion of saints denied - the saints have no communion with those in this life according to the reformers.

              etc, etc. All done without any authority, and against tradition and in many cases, against scripture.

              JM

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mossrose
                Put to death in the flesh, made alive in the spirit, went and made proclamation to the bound spirits all in the same context. Resurrection is not mentioned in the context in these verses.
                You don't think being made alive in the Spirit refers to the resurrection? Then that would be why you are confused about the passage.

                Comment


                • #23
                  ". . . how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 15:3.

                  ". . . All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, . . . poured out his soul unto death: . . ." -- Isaiah 53:6, 10, 12.

                  ". . . God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . ." -- Romans 5:8

                  ". . . For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21.

                  ". . . the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins . . ." -- Romans 3:24-25.

                  ". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. . . ." -- 1 John 2:2.

                  ". . . Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. . . ." -- 1 John 4:10.

                  Webster's Dictionary 1828

                  Propitiation
                  PROPITIATION, n. propisia'shon.


                  1. The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person; the act of making propitious.

                  2. In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of men. Rom 3. 1 John 2.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Propitiation does not mean substitute, or substitution. The reformed theology requires that it does, hence the theology of substitution on this point is very problematic.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      Propitiation does not mean substitute, or substitution. The reformed theology requires that it does, hence the theology of substitution on this point is very problematic.

                      JM

                      So how do you understand ". . . laid on him the iniquity of us all . . . ?" Sounds like substitution to me. ". . . Christ died for us. . . ." Again, very much sounds like substitution to me.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 37818
                        So how do you understand ". . . laid on him the iniquity of us all . . . ?"
                        An even better question would be: What does John Martin say that a person needs to do in order to get to heaven?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          So how do you understand ". . . laid on him the iniquity of us all . . . ?" Sounds like substitution to me. ". . . Christ died for us. . . ." Again, very much sounds like substitution to me.
                          That's right it does sound like substitution. Maybe there is something of a substitution theology in this verse, but then again -

                          1) "laid on him the iniquity of us all" could also mean something else as expressing the mystery of redemption. A mystery can never be fully understood, and hence the language used, simultaneously exposes and hides something of the reality of redemption going on in Isaiah.

                          2) may infer a form of substitution other than that proposed by the penal substitution theory of the reformers, whereby the suffering servant offers something to the Father through His sufferings and thereby redeems a people.

                          The major problem of penal substitution is it's rationalism that tries to reduce Christ's work down to what can be understood as a legal exchange. The exchange is false for many reasons, one being, such an exchange ignores the supernatural action of the Son towards the Father which can never be reduced to the rationalism of legal exchange. The supernatural action goes beyond a legal exchange required in the penal substitution theory (PST).

                          Ironically, because the PST reduces the supernatural action of the Son towards the Father, the PST removes much of the reason why faith is required to be justified. Faith is not required as an instrument, whereby Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinners account, for such an exchange is far too problematic. Faith is required as a theological virtue, because it is a supernatural gift from God, whereby the grace of faith allows the regenerated person to believe the supernatural mystery of the redemption of the cross and resurrection. Faith causes men to believe without the requirement of a full, rationalist explanation as proposed in the PST which seeks to explain what occurred on the cross and in the legal setting of the heavenly court.

                          The reduced need for faith in the PST theory becomes more evident when we consider that reason can arrive at the conclusions of penal substitution without faith, provided all the lines within the following argument are true.

                          1) God exists.
                          2) Men are sinners.
                          3) God speaks the truth.
                          4) God has told men that Christ is both God and man and who died and rose from the dead to save men.
                          5) Through reason, based upon what God has revealed, the PST then proposes the reasoned explanation of how God has redeemed men.

                          Each of the steps 1 to 5 can be arrived at using reason and experience of men's sins (2). Each step does not require faith, (at least intrinsically). For example -

                          1) God exists - known from St Thomas's five ways.

                          2) Men are sinners - known from experience.

                          3) God speaks the truth - logically from the nature of God as known by reason.

                          4) God has told men that Christ is both God and man and who died and rose from the dead to save men - logically follows from the witness of prophecy and miracles which demonstrate Christ was God, who then told us the truth about God. Reason alone is required to know that prophets can and probably did speak for God, reason then concludes that when Christ fulfills what the prophets have said, then reason concludes that Christ is God. Hence Christ will speak the truth.

                          5) Through reason, based upon what God has revealed, the PST then proposes the reasoned explanation of how God has redeemed men - the PST purports to use reason to reduce the redemption down to what can be understood as a legal exchange of Christ's righteousness by faith alone.

                          Faith is then only required in step 5, which is extrinsic to the reasoned method in steps 1 - 6. The PST then reduces the need for faith as an instrumental cause within a rationalist theory.

                          The truth of course is much more mysterious. Let us now compare the above 5 points with the Catholic understanding of what the redemption is and how faith is required within the divine soteriological act.

                          1) God exists - known by reason. But we do not know what the supernatural (SN) life in God is. By faith we know the SN life is the Trinity.

                          2) Men are sinners - known by reason, experience and confirmed by revelation.

                          3) God speaks the truth - known by reason. Faith also says God can speak about realities that are beyond reason. Such should be part of the expectation of what is to be revealed by God - truths beyond reason.

                          4) God has told men that Christ is both God and man and who died and rose from the dead to save men. Reason and faith confirm this truth. Faith says Christ will and has revealed truths about God that are beyond reason.

                          5) Through reason, we know the problem of sin can only be resolved by God. By faith we know God has resolved the problem of sin through the cross. What exactly the divine action of the cross entails is a matter for faith, whereby Christ's action is beyond reason. Reason can be used to grant men some penetration into the mystery of redemption, but reason will never explain the redemption. For to do so would be to reduce the redemption down to what can only be understood and thereby reduce the SN mystery to rationalism.

                          So PST is deficient in many ways, one of which is ironically to reduce the need for faith.

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by John Martin
                            The reduced need for faith in the PST theory becomes more evident when we consider that reason can arrive at the conclusions of penal substitution without faith, provided all the lines within the following argument are true.
                            Faith doesn't mean a lack of reason. It means accepting things that cannot be seen.

                            Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

                            John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                              An even better question would be: What does John Martin say that a person needs to do in order to get to heaven?
                              The norm is to repent, believe and be baptized. Then keep the commandments of God, whilst participating in the sacramental economy, which consists in the seven sacraments of baptism, confession, confirmation, Eucharist, priesthood, marriage, and anointing of the sick.

                              Another good question would be - what is the gospel?

                              Answer - the gospel is everything the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals.

                              Q - How do you know what the gospel is?

                              Answer - I know what the gospel is because God has revealed in the gospels and the witness of church history that Christ instituted the Catholic church as the instrument of mans salvation, which has the powers to teach, govern and sanctify. We can contrast this claim and witness of church history with the claim of the reformation that 1) Christ did not instituted the Catholic church, 2) Gods revelation is only in the scriptures (sola scriptora), and 3) justification by faith alone. Points 1-3 are easily answered from scripture and church history, and thereby the only viable option for those who are familiar with church history is to conclude that the Catholic church is everything she claims to be.

                              If I ask the same question to an evangelical christian - What does a person need to do in order to get to heaven? The answer will come from scripture as understood through 1) the teaching of the local denomination, and/or 2) own personal opinion, done at odds with church history and the teachings of the Catholic church and the church fathers, and hence adverse to logic, and both the nature of God and man.

                              Here are two examples of how easy it is to debunk faith alone theology -

                              1) Mark 16:16 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. The conjunction 'and', specifies both faith and baptism are required to be saved. Faith alone theology either 1) separates faith from baptism in the act of God saving man, which is adverse to what is stated in Mk 16:16, or 2) simply ignores this verse altogether.

                              2) The Lord's prayer specifies the manner by which the Father will forgive sins.

                              And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us.

                              The forgiveness of trespasses is conditional upon us forgiving others who sin against us. Such a condition is foreign to faith alone theology.

                              Here are two examples of how easy it is to debunk sola scriptura -

                              1) Inspiration is a supernatural charism whereby God is the principle author of the text. As the charism is SN, then there is no natural means by which men can determine if any text was written by God, and/or what text has been written by God. Therefore the only institution that can determine what the canon of scripture is, is the institution granted by God, when Christ instituted the Catholic Church with the power to teach with the authority of God. All other methods used to determine the canon will fail because of the failure to recognize the true nature of inspiration. Hence, because the reformers denied Christ instituted the Catholic Church, they had no means to determine the canon of scripture. As the canon cannot be determined, then there is no means to determine if God has revealed anything through any text at all. Hence sola scriptura is false.

                              2) sola scriptura is not in scripture, hence the doctrine is only a human invention and not from God. For sola scriptura to be true, sola scriptura would have to be revealed by God from the scriptures alone. As it is not, then sola scriptura is merely a human error.

                              Its all very easy ladies and gentlemen. Very easy indeed.

                              JM

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                                Faith doesn't mean a lack of reason. It means accepting things that cannot be seen.

                                Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

                                John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
                                I never said faith means a lack of reason. I did say the penal substitution theory (PST) reduces the need for faith by reducing the act of redemption to that which can be understood by reason, as a legal exchange, which involves faith. Faith is not altogether removed by the PST, but faith is only required as an instrument for justification. There is simply no need to have faith to believe what the PST teaches. You can work it all out using the method already given above. Faith then becomes only one step within the PST, which itself a reasoned theory about redemption.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X