An Inferred Argument for Penal Substitution

[Bob_Wilson]

B.A.C., I didn’t at all expect that you would “know” or somehow be able to intuit my understanding of the vital Biblical texts. That’s why I offered you the unread paper that presents my best perceptions after many decades of teaching the Word. All who have been willing to graciously respond with their own critique and reading have been warmly welcomed into the dialogue. You would be no exception, if you so choose.

[JeffA]

…Jesus Christ would die at Calvary for mankind. John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God”, which beareth the sin of the world.( John 1:29) In other words, John the Baptist knew Jesus would be the eternal sacrifice for mankind and fulfill the OT sacrifices and feasts. (Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:4). Isaiah prophesied Jesus’ substionary death in (Isaiah 53).( 2 Cor 5:19) states the worlds tresspasses or sins were not imputed to them but to Jesus himself. (2 Cor 5:21) states that Jesus was made sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him… I don’t know how you can deny the revelation in these verses and the types and shadows revealed in the OT sacrifices.

Very universalist quotations there although I know from your introduction you aren’t one.

[Aaron37]

…Jesus Christ would die at Calvary for mankind. John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God”, which beareth the sin of the world.( John 1:29) In other words, John the Baptist knew Jesus would be the eternal sacrifice for mankind and fulfill the OT sacrifices and feasts. (Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:4). Isaiah prophesied Jesus’ substionary death in (Isaiah 53).( 2 Cor 5:19) states the worlds tresspasses or sins were not imputed to them but to Jesus himself. (2 Cor 5:21) states that Jesus was made sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him… I don’t know how you can deny the revelation in these verses and the types and shadows revealed in the OT sacrifices.

Very universalist quotations there although I know from your introduction you aren’t one.

Greetings Jeff.

Universal meaning God’s grace extends to every human being without exception, but this grace must be accepted to personally partake of it.

[JeffA]

No problem with that… It’s entirely possible that eventually everyone will accept it - whether in this life or the next (if there is one )

[Aaron37]

B.A.C., I didn’t at all expect that you would “know” or somehow be able to intuit my understanding of the vital Biblical texts. That’s why I offered you the unread paper that presents my best perceptions after many decades of teaching the Word. All who have been willing to graciously respond with their own critique and reading have been warmly welcomed into the dialogue. You would be no exception, if you so choose.

Greetings Bob.

It seems the “vital Biblical texts” as you put it are working against the truth as you understand it in your paper. I believe you are the one who must account for the Substitonary death proof texts that contradict your understanding.

Jesus clearly saw his coming death as the substitionary sacrifice for sinners. ( Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45)
As did the prophet Isaiah ( Isaiah 53:1-12)
As did John the Baptist ( John 1:29)
As did the Apostle Paul ( 1 Pet 2:24; 1 Pet 3:18; 2 Cor 5 :19-21; 1 Tim 2 : 5-6 which states Jesus giving himself to be a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

How is it possible to explain these revelation truths away to support your understanding?

[JasonPratt]

Members:

You need to know that “BookofActsChristian” is posting from the same internet location as “Born Again” aka “Aaron37”; the forum system listed “Aaron37” as a registered alternate alias for BoAC (registered by the user at that location themselves).

While it’s technically possible this may be someone else named “Lee”, this person has continued posting without responding to formal administrative requests to clear up his identity, so we’ve shut down this access point more tightly.

I mention this to say that while you’re welcome to discuss the things he wrote (they’re certainly legitimate enough topics for discussion), please be aware that it’s unfair to challenge him back at this point, since he is not in a position anymore to answer in turn.

[Bob_Wilson]

Aaron 37,
You assert that the texts I cite contradict my conclusion, but I can’t see that you have engaged even one of my many oberservations. You cite many of the same references I did, and characterize them as “substitutionary,” but I can’t see that my paper ever argues that Jesus does not have a substitutionary role. Are you really dialoguing with it?

[JeffA]

Please excuse me posting a long-ish extract from a book freely available on Google Books, but there are many available there from what seems to be a golden age of universalist writings in the early to mid nineteenth century (many like this one of Unitarian bent). However, many of them have a view of the atonement in the original sense of the word at-one-ment meaning a reconciliation; and in the direction from God toward us and not vice versa. From the book Theology of universalism: being an exposition of its doctrines and teachings … By Thomas Baldwin Thayer 1862

THE ATONEMENT, WHAT IT IS, AND HOW WE ARE RECONCILED AND SAVED BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

The word " Atonement" is one of those theological terms, the true meaning of which has been sadly perverted; and the beautiful and tender thought which it expresses in the Scriptures, overlaid with the errors and coarse definitions of the schools and creeds.

It is a curious fact that this word, which occupies so large a space in the theological literature, and sectarian controversies, of our time, is found only once in the New Testament. Rom. v. 11. And the use of it in this passage is so directly in conflict with the meaning commonly attached to it, that it is a marvel how it ever came to signify substitution, or the suffering of Christ in the sense of satisfaction to Divine Justice.

The meaning of the original word is wide enough from this idea, and is properly expressed in every other passage where it occurs, by the English word " reconciliation." And this was the meaning of the word " atonement " in early English, and at the tiuio the present translation was made. It has passed out of this into its present narrow and perverted sense, since that day. A few references to earlier literature will illustrate this point.

Johnson, the lexicographer, states that the primitive meaning of the word was " to agree, to accord." And he quotes from Shakespeare, who was contemporary with our translators, in proof of this :

" He and Aufidiug can no more atone
Than violentest contrariety."

Trench, in his Glossary of English Words, givesthe following illustrations of its early usage :

" His first essay succeeded so well, Moses would venture on a second design, to atone two Israelites at variance."

" Having more regard to their old variance than their new atonement."

" If Sir John Falstaff have committed disparagement unto you, I am of the Church, and will be glad to do my benevolence, to make atonements and compromises between you."1

In all these examples, " atone " signifies agreement, or reconciliation, being put in opposition to " contrariety," " variance," " hostility," &c. Originally it was written as two words, joined by a hyphen, and pronounced thus, at-one ; and the noun at-one-ment, meaning a state of oneness or unity.

In the Apocrypha the translators have used the

i Coriolanus, Act. iv. Sc. 6. Fuller’s Pisgah Sight of Palestine, ii 92. Moore’s History of Richard III., Merry Wives of Windsor Act i. Sc. 1.

word in this form : " Then cried they to Simon, beseeching them to be at-one with them," referring to those besieged in the tower at Jerusalem. 1 Maccabees xiii. 50. So in the second book of Maccabees, where the wish is expressed that God " would hear your prayers and be at-one with you," i. 5. And again it is written: " Though the Lord be angry with us a little while for our chastening and correction, yet shall, he be at-one again with his servants," ’ vii. 33. And in the New Testament we have this use of the word: " The next day he showed himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at-one again." Acts vii. 26 ; i. e. would have atoned or reconciled them.

The Book of Homilies, of the Church of England, employs the term in the same sense in reference to Christ’s death, though it falsely applies it to God instead of man. * The New Testament never speaks of God being reconciled to man, but it is always man who is reconciled to God. Hence in the passage already named, the only one in which the word atonement is used, we have it in this form : " But we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whcm we have now received the atonement." Rom. v. 11. It is we who have been atoned or reconciled to God, not God to us. And this is the uniform witness of the Gospel; and it shows how utterly unfounded is the common doctrine of God’s wrath against man, and the necessity of Christ’s sacrificial death in order to satisfy his offended justice. Let us see how this stands in the sacred text.

Rom. v. 10, 11. " For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life," &c. 2 Cor. v. 18-20. " All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation ; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us ; we pray you, in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God." Rom. xi. 15. " The reconciling of the- world." 1 Cor. vii. 11. " Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband."

These are all the passages in the New Testament where the Greek word rendered atonement occurs; and, as we see, in every instance but one it is rendered by the word " reconciliation," in its substantive or verbal form. The idea embodied in the word is obvious enough, and the doctrine is plain and positive beyond mistake or dispute. It is we who are enemies to God, not he an enemy to us. We are the unreconciled party ; and the object of Christ’s death, and the whole aim and intent of the Gospel, is this one thing — to reconcile man to God. This is the true atonement, and this is all that is embodied in the figures of a Sacrifice, a Mediator, Intercessor, Advocate, &c. There is no suffering of punishment in the place of the guilty world; no infliction of the penalties of the violated law on one who never offended ; no satisfaction rendered to inexorable justice ; no confusion of God the judge and executioner, and God the victim and sufferer; nothing vicarious or substitutional, in any sense whatever, in this scriptural presentation of the subject. ’ God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, and the burthen of the ministry of reconciliation is simply this—" Be ye reconciled to God." Hense the apostle declares that " it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, whether things in earth, or things in heaven." Col. i. 19, 20.

I think, Bobx3, this would accord more with your distaste of Christ’s sacrifice as a violent appeasement of an angry God. Certainly this kind of thinking on the cross coupled with Universalism as a whole is a startling contrast to the Hellfire and vicious punishment of Jesus to appease God Christian world in which I grew up (and was believed with absolute certainty and fervour by generations of my family).

[Luke]

Who decides what is “evangelical,” and on what basis? Frankly, I’m at an age where such labels, or conforming to what men think, is of little interest to me. My paper make no case that rejecting P.S. can be evangelical. It is only interested in looking at what views are intended in the Bible. I think we should be much more focused on the question, what do we have reason to think is “true,” than how can we continue to be called “evangelical.”

Bob, such a glib dismisal doesn’t make much sense. Robin Parry the author of The Evangelical Universalist makes a great effort to show that Universalism should be considered within the Evangelical fold. Why would he bother?

[Bob_Wilson]

You call glib arguing that what matters is that our faith is Biblical. I call that the essence of being evangelical. But you seem to want to call names and argue about them, rather than ever get to engaging the Scriptures. That’s a form of evangelicalism in which Robin Parry has no interest.

[SLJ]

Jeff, I appreciate the quote from Thayer! I moved away from a purely penal substitutionary concept of atonement some years ago, but still am trying to comprehend what it really means. The ruts of old thinking patterns are not easy to break out of–and it’s good to hear it explained in different ways by multiple people who seem to have some kind of understanding. This helps greatly. I think I’ll be working on this idea for awhile yet before I really feel I understand. I like how George MacDonald has one of his fictional characters say, “I desire to understand what God means by the Atonement.”

I’m also slowly working my way through the (very long!) old thread on Penal Substitution and Universalism that Bob linked to earlier in this thread–which I hadn’t seen before–and I’m also reading Bob Wilson’s 2 page Penal Substitution paper (which is excellent–lots of concepts are squeezed into those two pages. Thanks Bob!) And looking forward to reading Bobx3’s essay on Getting what we deserve–I always appreciate your thoughts!

Sonia

[Luke]

You call glib arguing that what matters is that our faith is Biblical. I call that the essence of being evangelical. But you seem to want to call names and argue about them, rather than ever get to engaging the Scriptures. That’s a form of evangelicalism in which Robin Parry has no interest.

Who decides whose being the most biblical? Isn’t “biblical” just another ‘label’? We read the Scriptures through the lens of tradition, wether we realize it or not. There’s no such thing as a pure neutral reading of Scripture, we’re all fallible humans reading it through a particular set of historical assumptions. Saying otherwise implies it’s possible to entirely neutral!

[Bob_Wilson]

Luke, I respect your point that seeking to be Biblical is problematic because of presuppositions that we all bring to the text. Religious liberals always make that very classical argument that the Bible is such a “wax nose” that it is useless in the pursuit of valid beliefs.

Yet I personally reject your case for avoiding discussion of Scripture. Perhaps you are right that this is only because my tradition is in evangelicalism where wrestling with the Bible’s story has a central place in forming one’s convictions. But it may explain why I am less skeptical than you about its’ usefulness. I actually find real help and rich edification in it.

[Bob_Wilson]

Luke,
As I reflect on ALL of our interactions, it seems that each time you present arguments for why we should not engage in serious interaction about the Scripture, but you insist that it is vital to be “evangelical.” Since my experience in evangelicalism was that Scripture should play an authoritative role in evaluating our beliefs, I am curious how you are defining “evangelical.” Do you see a particular interpretation of the reformation as complete, providing the last word?

[JasonPratt]

Incidentally, Thayer’s research bears out what George MacDonald (absolutely a trinitarian, not a unitarian ) used to remind his readers in the 19th century: the word first deployed for biblical translation by the Authorized Version compilers, ‘atonement’, is actually ‘at-one-ment’ (meaning at-one-ment) not ‘a-tone-ment’ (meaning nothing).

I realize penal substitutionary theory is very popular among evangelicals right now, but trying to tie it into evangelicalism may be like trying to make either Calvinism or Arminianism ‘evangelical’ with the other not.

Asking a slightly different question to Aaron : How to do the Evangelical Universalists on this forum account for P.S.?

As TV mentioned, some of us accept PS, others not. I don’t accept PS as typically formulated (and it’s easier to just say I deny PS rather than try to describe something similar that I hold very strongly that I don’t have a good punchy descriptive label for yet–“corporate penalization”??–I mean Christ being reckoned with transgressors, to use St. Paul’s way of putting it, not instead of transgressors). But several of us here do, including most (maybe all?) of the ultra-universalists.

I’m on record around here somewhere saying that if I thought penal substitution as typically understood was true, I would be an ultra-u, too, as a logical consequence. The only other option would be Calv soteriology of some kind, where the Son does not bear all wrath of the Father, for the whole world, but only for the pre-chosen elect. If all God’s wrath at sin is over and done with, finished in His punishment of the innocent Son, then ping: ultra-u. It doesn’t even matter whether one accepts that punishment in one’s stead or not. What’s the Father going to do?–all His wrath was expended already, completely for all sin, on the Son! If He wrathed on someone afterward for not accepting His wrath on the innocent Son, it wouldn’t be fully accomplished already for us.

My stomach wants to vomit at even typing the hypothetical proposal of such a crying and ultimate injustice, being proposed of no less than God Most High Himself (not even counting the flagrant schisming of the Persons–but I couldn’t hold such a belief in good conscience even if I was unitarian. Other people might do so, but not me. I would think even a unitarian ought to believe more strongly in the unity of the Father and the Son than that. {ironic g} )

But that’s a whole other discussion. Or ten or twelve whole other discussions, for twenty or thirty whole other threads.

I do at least acknowledge the serious weight PS lays in favor of one kind of universalism. (And I do realize and gratefully acknowledge that PS proponents, whether universalist or not, are trying, in their own ways, to honor and promote important truths about God. )

[roofus]

You call glib arguing that what matters is that our faith is Biblical. I call that the essence of being evangelical. But you seem to want to call names and argue about them, rather than ever get to engaging the Scriptures. That’s a form of evangelicalism in which Robin Parry has no interest.

Who decides whose being the most biblical? Isn’t “biblical” just another ‘label’? We read the Scriptures through the lens of tradition, whether we realize it or not. There’s no such thing as a pure neutral reading of Scripture, we’re all fallible humans reading it through a particular set of historical assumptions. Saying otherwise implies it’s possible to be entirely neutral!

Maybe that’s an historical assumption, or have we as moderns escaped subjectivity?

[Luke]

Luke, I respect your point that seeking to be Biblical is problematic because of presuppositions that we all bring to the text. Religious liberals always make that very classical argument that the Bible is such a “wax nose” that it is useless in the pursuit of valid beliefs.

Yet I personally reject your case for avoiding discussion of Scripture. Perhaps you are right that this is only because my tradition is in evangelicalism where wrestling with the Bible’s story has a central place in forming one’s convictions. But it may explain why I am less skeptical than you about its’ usefulness. I actually find real help and rich edification in it.

Bob, that’s an Ad hominem argument to imply I’m someone whose reluctant to engage with Scripture. I would have thought it’s self-evident that the definition of evangelicalism is as much sociological and historical as it is doctrinal.

[Alex_Smith]

Yet I personally reject your case for avoiding discussion of Scripture.

Bob, I think you may have taken some of Luke’s comments the wrong way? He is an Anglican Minister fresh out of Bible college so I certainly hope he hasn’t been avoiding the discussion of Scripture

I think I’ve had some of this discussion a few weeks ago on his blog. I believe he is saying that neither Universalists or non-Universalists can claim to have perfect insight to all Scripture. i.e. both sides come to the Bible with biases and have to qualify some passages.

[Luke]

Sorry to call your earlier response glib Bob, I think we got off on the wrong foot.

[Bob_Wilson]

Luke, like Tom, I dig your photo, and I also appreciate your regret that we have gotten off on a bad foot. I am sorry that my frustration with a lack of engagement on Scripture has come across to you as an ad hominem attack.

As I said above, I totally respect your and Alex’s point that we all have bias’ and lack insight. I aso totally agree with you that a lot of our definitions of what is right are rooted in “sociological” influences. My central frustration is that I perceive you as raising views here that you find questionable. But when I say that the central puzzle for the tradition emphasized on this site focuses on what to make of relevant Scripture, you appear to me to consistently present reasons for why we should defer engaging the substance of the Biblical material. For me, that is the common ground that most of us share, and thus the most useful grist for insightful dialogue and understanding better why we may come to different conclusions. It has seemed to me that the alternative is essentially to declare or label others as wrong, which is what I fear most amounts to an ad-hominem approach.