Featured 2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't support penal substitution (reposted)

No, it isn't. You cannot provide even one verse that presents Christ as experiencing God's wrath, or Christ dying instead of us dying, or God punishing Jesus instead of punishing us.

You pretend it is in the Bible. But you only give verses and tell us what those verses "really" mean.

That is why I say you are not a Biblicist. You hold ideas foreign to what is written in God's Word, treat those ideas as if they were Scripture, and read into the Bible your theories.

Provide one verse that says Jesus experienced God's wrath.

Provide one verse that says Jesus died instead of us.

You can't. Because they do not exist.

You hold reformed Roman Catholic doctrine. You read that into Scripture.

 

No, this is false.

I know the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because I was a Calvinist. I taught the theory.

One Sunday, as a guest preacher, I preached a sermon on the Cross. Being a Calvinist I obviously preached within the context of Penal Substitution Theory. It was well received. I went to bed content with the sermon.

The next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had strayed from Scripture by offering a theory rather than God's Word. I can't explain the conviction adequately. I had held Penal Substitution Theory as correct all of my adult life. I read it throughout Scripture. But I couldn't shake the conviction.

I bought two dry erase boards and set them up in my office. Over a month I went through writing every verse that proved Penal Substitution correct. Then I examined the verses and erased any passage that did not actually present the theory. In the end no verses remained.

I told you I am a Biblicist. How could I believe a view of the Atonement, such a foundational doctrine, if it was it actually in the Bible? How can we test doctrine against "what is written" except that doctrine actually be written.

I knew that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was wrong. It was difficult, but I worked to read Scripture without reading into it. Once somebody tells you an ink blot is a bat, it is hard not to see the bat.

I concentrated on the text. And it made sense as written, without adding to it.

I came away believing God's Word - Christ suffered and died under the powers of this world, under the wages of sin....our sin. He did not die instead of us, but as Scripture states He died for us, for our sin.

I was familiar with pre-Reformation writings because my seminary degree was in theology. I had dismissed much of their ideas as undeveloped.

Now I could read the writings of the early church and see that they were correct. They adhered to God's Word (to "what is written".


So my understanding comes solely from Scripture. It was validated through the teachings of the early church, churches outside of the RCC during the Reformation, and current theologies.

Penal Substitution Theory is popular, but it is a small sect within Christianiy that affirms the theory.

 

Yes.

 

I understand. Like I said, I held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as correct for most of my life.

Other factors come into play and affect how we deal with the Bible and determine doctrine. And these factors are not the same for every Christian.

What made me move from the theory was that conviction it was wrong. That happened to me (it was personal). Had I not preached the sermon, had I not awoken with that conviction, then I would still hold the theory as correct.

I am also a biblicist in the sense I believe foundational doctrines must be in "what is written" (in the text of Scripture) and not just in what we believe that text teaches. It can be systematically derived, but only in that the points are distributed in God's Word. I could have changed my view of doctrine and Scripture and continued to hold Penal Substitution Theory. I didn't.

There are reasons I believe that way.

I believe we must test doctrine against the text of Scripture. BUT I do not understand how we can text doctrine against God's Word without requiring that doctrine to actually be in the actual text ("what is written").

The problem with testing doctrine against what we believe is indicated by Scripture - if that is a foundational doctrine- is essentially we are testing what we believe Scripture indicates against what we believe is indicated by Scripture. It becomes subjective.

I do not expect everyone to hold my views. I don't expect everyone to adhere to "what is written" as the test of doctrine as I know many (if not most) use "what is taught" or "what is indicated" as the test.

These differences mean there will never be agreement in this life. And that is fine.

I am merely trying to explain my position and why I hold it and I believe that is your intent as well.

We all believe things that are not in the text of Scripture, we all have opinions about what is taught. But for me, a foundational doctrine has to stand up to a stronger criteria. It has to be in God's Word rather than something we believe is taught by the Bible.

 

EXACTLY!!!!

That is why I tested Penal Substitution Theory against "what is written" rather than what I believe is taught by Scripture.

I chose a very objective Standard -God's Word.

As you may have realized by your inability to provide even one verse stating that Christ suffered God's wrath, or stating that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us, you hold a subjective standard.

I can provide Scripture stating what I believe on this subject without having to add "but this really means" and without having to redefine words. You can't.

No, most liberal churches come from a Penal Substitution tradition. I am not sure why that is, but the Methodist Church has become very liberal as has many Presbyterian and Baptist churches.

The churches here in the US that reject Penal Substitution Theory are very conservative (many too legalistic, IMHO).

 

This is a false statement.

Most here believe that they do test doctrine against Scripture, that is true. BUT there is a bit of unintentional doublespeak there.

I mean testing doctrine against "what is written". That is something you failed to do by refusing to provide Scripture that states Christ suffered God's wrath, or that God punished Christ instead of punishing us.

What you do is test what you believe Scripture teaches against what you believe is taught in the Bible. That is subjective.

@Arthur King and I are in a minority on this board. There are less than a dozen who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (that I know of) here.

But that doesn't matter. Penal Substitution Theory is not a majority view outside of that s board.

 

Rather than going back and forward saying "you are wrong" let's approach this as Christian adults.


1. Provide a passage stating in the text of that passage that Christ suffered God's wrath.

2. Provide a passage stating that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.


Then ask me to provide a passage stating two points of my view.


(I am asking for God's Word, not what you believe God's Word teaches....the heart is exceedingly wicked, we have to rely on God).

 

That is why I bought 2 dry erase boards and went directly to Scripture. I didn't just ditch the theory because of a conviction.

 

I agree that we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

I agree that Jesus rescues us from the wrath to come.

I do not agree that this occurred at the Atonement.

I believe that the Cross was God reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their sins against them, and committing to us the ministry of reconciliation, urging men to be reconciled to God.

 

When do we escape the wrath to come? When the wrath comes ("on that day", the Judgment).

John 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, *said, “I am thirsty.”

What does the verse say? What does it say everything is done? Was His second coming done? Was Judgment Day a past event? Was the Resurrection done?

No. Go back to Scripture. What was the Cross?


2 Corinthians 5:18–19 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

God had reconciled the World to Himself.

What follows? God was not counting their sins against them - He committed to us the ministry of reconciliation.

The World is reconciled to God. What else is there? For men to be reconciled to God, which is why we "urge men to be reconciled to God".