The Penal Theory of the Atonement

[Guest im4him]

Does there have to be a complete logical and understandable answer to every question about God's character? How can we as humans dare to attribute human, finite thought prcesses to an infinate God?

That is the reasoning one can use to assume that an idea of penal payment should be scrapped.

It is just what it's description states, a theory.

If a theory, it is not proven. If it is not proven then doctrines should not be made from it.

And the doctrine that was made from this is the cornerstone of eternal security beliefs.

Given your reasoning, should we also assume that since we don't understand God's character that it would be prudent to throw out eternal security beliefs?

That doesn't appear to be anything anyone wants to do, so the theology that supports the doctrine should be sound, should it not?

We do not study doctrine and theology to accuse someone of a different mind.

I didn't see anyone accusing anybody else of anything. We study doctrine and theology to understand God. If a theology or doctrine isn't true, then it must not be describing God.

Do you, agree?

I have no intention of making posts that demean another or cause division. Too often this reasoning of division is given as an excuse to bypass a topic that sheds light on an issue someone wants to remain in darkness over.

I am not trying to imply this in regards to anyone here, just that this has been a pattern I have seen with those that want to shun other topics, such as coming to Christ in the first place.

Oh, and to answer the question about whether our sins were bought or not, they weren't bought. We were bought with the blood of Christ. Our sins were FORGIVEN...cast away as far as the east is from the west....

Then, does this mean that you do not accept the Penal Payment theory?

[Guest im4him]

The wages of sin is death means that death is what we deserved. If we accept Jesus as our Lord, His death on the cross became our death. He was forsaken by the Father for a time and that is what would happen to us if Jesus had not gone to the cross in our place.

[sagz4Christ]

You stated in a former post that you couldn't find any evidence of eternal security past...who was it...Armenius? It was your contention that the early Chruch Fathers...and I assume you mean the apostles Paul, Peter, and all the other writer of the New Testament....taught...what was it...conditional security. Am I correct so far?

If that is the case...I am going to use your logic here as I continue.....

First...you need to come to repentance and a saving faith in Christ. Then you are a believer.

If as a believer, there are conditions placed on keeping us saved, i.e. things that we MUST do in order to get to heaven, then it would be our work. If our work in doing what we have to to keep us saved is what keeps us saved, then we have something to boast about. But there is no boasting in heaven, so it can't be works.

Another way to argue that point is:

If a believer's security is conditional based on something he has to do, then it is works...if it is works, then grace wan't a gift, nor was it free...if grace wan't a gift, nor was it free...then Paul was a lier and the whole of the Bible is contradictory and God isn't just..

You see...you can widdle away at anything that doesn't line up with what you think the bible says...luckily...it doesn't matter what either you or I think...it only matters what the Lord thinks...He laid it out for us in Scripture.

Though this thread isn't intended (at least on the surface) to deny the eternal security of the believer, that is the total aim, or at least what it turned into. If we are here to seek an honest answer to the question at hand, then we wouldn't be negating others thoughts on the subject unles we all came to the conclusion that that particular line of reasoning isn't very valid....we have not come to that point yet, so this thread remains in the spirit of contention...I don't want to contend this way as it serves no other purpose other than to point fingers and blast someone's theology that may be different.

I will however reason peacably and in the spirit of knowledge and truth. I will not argue with the intention of belittling others.

~your servant in Christ

[Guest im4him]

Oh, Sags!

You are simply trying to take my words and read what you want into them.

What's the problem, the fact that I stated that eternal security rests on this doctrine?

The fact is, it is true. Whether you accept it or not, that statement is true.

Please keep in mind, that the statement doesn't confirm nor deny that eternal security is true or false any more than it confirms or denies the validity of the theory of Penal Payment and it wasn't meant to do so. It was given with the intention of letting you know what it is you are contending for. And considering the poster that initiated this thread, you should have KNOWN that would be where this discussion is headed.

This is not the place to debate eternal security, there was thread started that we can go to for that.

All your accusations are without merit. Do you know what merit is?

It is what Paul was talking about when he said that works will not get you salvation. Works of merit. That is what you based your upheaval against me with. But you are using works of faith (repentance and belief) as their replacement to try to disprove me for something I have not entered into a discussion about. If you want to believe that repentance and belief become works after being saved, then go ahead and believe it.

BTW, you are way off on who you believe as the early fathers. Try arounf the apostles and the first two to three hundred years of the church.

I will however reason peacably and in the spirit of knowledge and truth. I will not argue with the intention of belittling others.

That is all anyone asks and is all that I am doing here. This, as you will see, is another controversial issue and you are doing yourself a dis-service to listen only to those that agree with you. I am here only to give the "other side of coin". I have judged no one in the manner that you have judged me, only shown the inconsistensies that need ironed out and asked pertinent questions. If that gets you riled then I am sorry.

Blessings All

[godrulz]

This is an important topic.

It is not an easy topic (books have been written about the 4 main views of the atonement).

Most people do not understand the nuances of the 'payment' theory, but accept it uncritically with a simplistic understanding.

There are alternate theories that probably resonate more with Scripture and God's character (without negating the beautiful 'payment' METAPHOR). Many people are not aware there are several legitimate views.

One's view on this is generally not a salvific (heaven or hell) issue, unless the view denies the need to repent and trust in Christ and His death and resurrection.

There is merit in wrestling with this issue together (but I think most of us are amateur theologians and may not do the topic justice...myself included).

[eric]

First let us examine the title of this thread," The penal theory of the atonement"

Penal suggests punishment, and punishment is the penalty for wrongdoing after having been commited to trial. Jesus, being not guilty of any crime or sin therefore, had no penalty to pay. Christ's death on the cross was voluntary. It was a sacrifice He made so that the veil would be torn to allow those who wanted to, to be free to be reconcilled back to our heavenly father, by accepting Him as Lord and saviour, as laid out in Paul's letter to the Romans In Chapt 10:9-10.

Now if some people want to believe that there was a payment made for us in order for us to have eternal life with the Lord, I have no problem with that. Likewise I have no problem if people think otherwise. Either way no person on earth will change the status quo, which is clearly outlined in John.3:3. except a man be born again, he will not see the kingdom of God.

On every board you go to you will find some who like to nit-pick and split hairs and think they know it all. If they spent as much time reading their bibles as they do sitting in front of their pc.s they wouldn't have to ask so many pointless questions. Whether Christ's death was payment or not is immaterial. The fact is, He did die. voluntarily, so that our sins could be forgiven,but only if we wish them to be so, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting there reading this.

Enjoy your day with the Lord.

[Mrs Mac]

The wages of sin  is death means that death is what we deserved. If  we accept Jesus as our Lord, His death on the cross became our death. He was forsaken by the Father for a time and that is what would happen to us if  Jesus had not  gone to the cross in our place.

Mrs Mac, I must ask you a question about what you said here.

If Jesus was forsaken by God, then how can Jesus be God in the flesh? To be seperated from God would mean that there were at least 2 different gods, right? You can't be forsaken from yourself, can you? When Jesus said, "My Father, why have you forsaken me?" He wasn't saying that He was no longer God, but He was quoting Psalm 22 which is a detailed prophecy of the crufixation....they pierce my hands and my feet...He was doing the same thing He did when He went up before the temple in Nazarath and opened the scroll of Isaiah and said "Today, this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing...."

Does this make sense?

Jesus was not just quoting Psalm 22, He fulfilled the prophecy. What was the prophecy? It sounds to me that he was forsaken in some way. If He wasn't, He felt as if He had been. I don't pretend to understand how Jesus was forsaken.

I do know however, that He paid the price that had to be paid for my sins. I don't know about yours but I know mine had to be paid for. I know also that the wages of my sin would have been death. I don't get paid wages now, I have been given the gift of eternal life in place of wages.

Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isa 53:6 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.

Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

"He bore the sin", He paid the price. All we have to do is accept it.

"The Penal Theory of Atonement". Who thought that phrase up? Is it an actual teaching? Who teaches it? or Was it dreamed up here?

Ethlyn

[Guest im4him]

Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isa 53:6 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.

If you will notice verse 4 it says that Jesus bore our griefs and carried our sorrows.

Then it says, Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, afflicted.

It doesn't say that God smote Him. This describes what we would see it as.

Consider it a prophecy if you may. God told us in advance that many would view Jesus as having been punished.

It goes on to tells us what it was really all about.

"The Penal Theory of Atonement". Who thought that phrase up? Is it an actual teaching? Who teaches it? or Was it dreamed up here?

From my understanding, the Penal Payment theory is a name given to the doctrine developed by John Calvin to support his doctrines that later became known as Calvinism.

Let me take the opportunity to thank you for responding to these post. I find great enjoyment when people can discuss these matters without pointing fingers at others in a spirit of accusation.

Because that is apparently going to keep happening to me by another poster, this shall be my last post.

May God continue to bless and keep you!

[sagz4Christ]

Ok, I have been looking...and wanted to find something on the major theories of atonement. I think I have come across something that will help put things in a fresh light.

This essay I found lists a few of the major theories ans give the strengths and weaknesses (as far as I could tell) of each one. I will post a few (with the link) of them and see where it leads us.

Link:Various theories to atonement by By David M. Williams

This essay is rather lengthy, so I will post the introduction and one theory. I can post more, or we can look at the site itself....if it is needed....

INTRODUCTION

The word 'atonement' is of Anglo-Saxon origin and  means "a making at one" (Morris, 1980, p. 147).  It  points to a process of bringing those who are estranged  into a unity.  Its theological use is to denote the work  of Christ in dealing with the problem that has been posed  by the sin of man, and bringing sinners into a right  relationship with God.

Sin is serious and man is unable to deal with it (I Kings 8:46; Psalm 14:3; Mark 10:18; Romans 3:23).  Sin separates  from God (Isaiah 59:2; Proverbs 15:29;  Colossians 1:21; Hebrews 10:27).  Man cannot keep it  hidden (Numbers 32:23).  The most importance evidence of this is the very fact of the atonement.  Morris (1980, p.

147) writes, "If the Son of God came to earth to save men, then men were sinners and their plight serious indeed."

However, although the meaning and effects of the atonement are known, throughout Church history many theories have arisen as to the precise nature of how the atonement was performed, the work and nature of the Godhead, and man's response.

Morris (1994, p. 12) believes that essentially three categories of theories exist - emphasising the bearing of penalty, outpouring of love and victory, respectively.  He states, "These are not mutually exclusive, though some have held that the truth is contained in one of them."  Indeed, the thrust of Morris (1994) is to demonstrate how various theories have responded to the needs and climate of the time, while developing his own understanding of the atonement relevant for current society and culture.

THE RANSOM THEORY

The notion that it was the devil who made the cross necessary was widespread in the early Church (Stott, 1989, p. 113).

Origen of the Alexandrian School, however, introduced a new idea, namely that Satan was deceived in the transaction.  Berkhof (1975, p. 166) writes

Christ offered Himself as a ransom to Satan, and Satan accepted the ransom without realising that he would not be able to retain his hold on Christ because of the latter's divine power and holiness. . . Thus the souls of all men - even of those in hades - were set free from the power of Satan.

Gregory of Nyssa repeated this idea, and justified the deceit on two grounds - namely that the deceiver received his "due" when deceived in turn, and that Satan benefits by it in the end anyway, as it results in his own salvation (Bromiley, 1978, p. 143).  In his Great Catechism he used the vivid imagery of a fish hook

as with ravenous fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down along with the bait of flesh, and thus, life being introduced into the house of death, . . . [the devil] might vanish" (Stott, 1989, p. 113).

Augustine later used an image of a mousetrap, as did Peter Lombard "baited with the blood of Christ".  R. W. Dale labelled these "intolerable, monstrous and profane" (Stott, 1989, p. 113-4).

The idea of a ransom paid to Satan was repudiated with scorn and indignation by Gregory of Nazianzus (Berkhof, 1975, p. 167) as well as the idea that God requires a ransom.

Jesus and the apostles certainly did speak of the cross as the means of the devil's overthrow but Stott (1989, p. 113) finds flaws.  Firstly, the devil has been credited with more power than he has.  Although a robber and a rebel, the view implies he had acquired certain 'rights' over man which even God was bound to.  Secondly, the cross was seen as a divine transaction - the ransom-price demanded by the devil for the release of his captives.  Thirdly, the concept of God performing a deception is not at all harmonious with the revelation of God given in Scriptures.

This seems to be the earliest theory set up as the article says...it is why I started with it as all the other theories base their findings on some aspect of this. (at least in my studies of it...which have only been the last week or so...so I may be way off.) I leave it for you all to decide.

~your sevant in Christ

[Faith1]

Interesting thread Sagz...I might get in on this discussion

But I'll have a read of a few more posts first.

In Christ who died for me

Faith1