Is the doctrine of Penal Substitution incoherent?

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Short, clear and to the point. Take 4 minutes of your time to watch this video and share your counterarguments.

 

[1689Dave]

Short, clear and to the point. Take 4 minutes of your time to watch this video and share your counterarguments.

The video completely misses God's reason for the creation of the universe. God makes himself known to his created order through sin. No sin, no righteousness. No sin, no mercy, no sin, no wrath, no sin (hatred) no love, and so on.

God's suffering in Jesus to redeem certain of Adam's sinful species, balances against Adam's sin in condemning his species. If God punishes them with eternal death, glorifying his sovereignty and righteousness. He conversely glorifies his sovereignty and righteousness by paying for the sins of the elect on the cross. quid pro quo, eternal life in exchange for eternal death.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

The video completely misses God's reason for the creation of the universe. God makes himself known to his created order through sin. No sin, no righteousness. No sin, no mercy, no sin, no wrath, no sin (hatred) no love, and so on.

I don't understand. Are you saying that sin always existed, even before satan rebelled?

 

[1689Dave]

I don't understand. Are you saying that sin always existed, even before satan rebelled?

I don't know. But it seems the devil sinned before Adam since he tempted him.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I don't know.

I am trying to follow your line of reason, I really am. Please try to make sense. Your counterargument to the ideas expressed in the video was that it misses God's reason for the creation of the universe. You never mentioned what the reason was, and then went on a tangent and enumerated some things that you consider can't exist without each other. One such pair is righteousness and sin. Seeing how the general idea in Christianity is that God has always been righteous, that would imply that sin has always existed. And when I asked you if sin always existed, you replied "I don't know".

My good sir, whether those pairs are indeed inseparable is irrelevant to the fact that punishing someone for the wrongdoings of someone else is unjust. Punishment should be only rehabilitative in nature. Once the person has realized the error of his/her ways and has committed him/herself to not do those things anymore, there is no further need for any punishment. Especially not the punishment of another being.

 

[Josiah]

@Lucian Hodoboc



Some thoughts.....


1. IMO, it is baseless to assume that the Bible tells us everything and that God has answered any questions someone might someday have. The Bible is not a "Q&A" book. It is, essentially, a collection of sermons meant to bring us to faith and lead us in life. It's not a textbook.


2. The Bible is clear that Jesus is the Savior. There is no salvation apart from Him; no other name by which salvation is found. And it is clear that essential is Jesus' incarnation, life, death and (especially) resurrection. These are absolutely necessary for that salvation.


3. But the Bible never clearly says why. WHY are these aspects of Jesus necessary? It's a good question! But it's a question never clearly answered. Officially, Christianity has left this issue as MYSTERY (as do the Lutheran Confessions) since no Church Council has ever attempted to answer this.


4. But theories abound! These various theories are sometimes referred to as "Atonement Theories." Most of these were developed early and "fine tuned" during the middle ages. And generally in the West (the Eastern Orthodox Churches generally pursued this less). Your opening post addresses just one of them, one especially popular among modern American "Evangelicals." Luther and Calvin were both fond of a different one, sometimes called "Christus Victor" that stresses the power and conquest of Christ over "the power of sin, death and Satan" as both Luther and Calvin put it. There are several of these. They don't always get named the same or even described the same. Here is a link to ONE such discussion (again, labels and descriptions vary), some count 3, some 7

History and Theories of Atonement - The Gospel Coalition

7 atonement theories from church history

Read more

faithrethink.com

5. I think most Catholic and Protestant theologians leave ALL of these as theories; each inadequate and problematic IN AND OF THEMSELVES, BY THEMSELVES. Each has good biblical support but still leaves the question not quite answered and sometimes even leave problems with Scripture. I didn't watch the video you supplied, but I'm well aware of the limitations and problems with the Vicarious Atonement view. But all the various theories have their limitations.


IMO, all are sincere attempts. All the various theories have SOME biblical support. But all fall short, all are inadequate. TOGETHER they are helpful but individually, well.... As a Lutheran, I prefer to simply leave this as MYSTERY (a word Lutherans love and use a lot, lol). We know THAT His incarnation, life, death and resurrection are absolutely essential to salvation - but not EXACTLY why.


A blessed Christmas to you and yours.


- Josiah




.this dot is dedicated to my brother MoreCoffee

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

@Josiah, how does the fact that we are not given a reason for the necessity of His incarnation, death and resurrection sit well with you? It doesn't sit well with me at all. And this is because God is called light without shadow. Why would He choose to keep something as important as the reason for which Jesus is the only way of salvation a mystery from us? Why would a Being who is light want to keep us in darkness about His actions? The claim that we would be unable to understand it doesn't hold water because we have people like the the prophets and the apostles, who were able to understand it. The Bible says that Jesus opened their minds and made them understand everything.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, how does the fact that we are not given a reason for the necessity of His incarnation, death and resurrection sit well with you?

Not exactly what I said. What I indicated is that the precise answer to WHY each aspect is essential is not expressly given in Scripture. See point #1. Does that bother me? Not in the least. Do we HAVE to cognatively know everything for it to be true? IF so, all Christianity falls; indeed likely everything falls. I have a few hundred questions God never has clearly answered in the Bible. I'm very much okay with that.


Side note: Your attitude here is stunning to me. I've been close personal friends with two Greek Orthodox Christians, and once was active at a website where a Greek Orthodox priest was also active (and on staff) and had many, many discussions with him. A very clear aspect of their faith is MYSTERY, that Christianity is a matter of the soul and spirit FAR more than the mind. I was told repeatedly that we westerners "think too much" and "think God has to answer our questions" and (to quote the priest) "don't seem to know when to shut up and let God be God." I had this very same discussion with Orthodox Christians, only to be told "Why do you fret over this? You are called to faith, not understanding." You seem to represent a very, very different Orthodoxy than I've ever encountered before. Sorry for the diversion. It is a side note.



.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Do we HAVE to cognatively know everything for it to be true?

It's not about knowing everything. It's about knowing the essentials. Especially when the stakes are so high (eternal punishment).

"Why do you fret over this? You are called to faith, not understanding." You seem to represent a very, very different Orthodoxy than I've ever encountered before. Sorry for the diversion. It is a side note.

Because I am a mere nominal Orthodox who doesn't hold to the core beliefs. In fact, I have yet to find a Christian denomination or sect whose doctrines I fully agree with. Believing without questioning has proven damaging in my life time and time again, so I refuse to live like that.

 

[Albion]

Because I am a mere nominal Orthodox who doesn't hold to the core beliefs. In fact, I have yet to find a Christian denomination or sect whose doctrines I fully agree with. Believing without questioning has proven damaging in my life time and time again, so I refuse to live like that.

Well, that certainly raises a question. Is there any religion or similar philosophy that DOES work for you or at least come close? Unitarianism, perhaps? Buddhism? Or Solipsism?

 

[Josiah]

I didn't mean to divert the thread....

This is about one of the Atonement Theories. I agreed it has its limitations.



.

 

[Albion]

@Josiah, how does the fact that we are not given a reason for the necessity of His incarnation, death and resurrection sit well with you?

Read Genesis. The "reason" is not elusive at all.

Why would He choose to keep something as important as the reason for which Jesus is the only way of salvation a mystery from us?

There's no secret. The Bible is the "most available" book in world history.

we have people like the the prophets and the apostles, who were able to understand it. The Bible says that Jesus opened their minds and made them understand everything.

Certainly, but that doesn't mean that NOTHING had been understood before. If that were so, no one would have known what a prophet was or what a prophet does and so wouldn't have understood anything coming from such a person!

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I have read the Bible numerous times. I don't know why some people assume that I would engage in theological debates on Christian topics without having read the Bible.

There's no secret. The Bible is the "most available" book in world history.

Then how do you explain the numerous interpretations, the numerous opinions, the numerous Christian groups / sects etc.?

 

[Albion]

I have read the Bible numerous times. I don't know why some people assume that I would engage in theological debates on Christian topics without having read the Bible.

I made no assumptions about that, and I have no idea how much of the Bible you've read. None of that figured into my reply to you anyway.

What I did say was that the answer to your concern is right there in the first book of the Bible. You seemed to be unaware of this fact.

Then how do you explain the numerous interpretations, the numerous opinions, the numerous Christian groups / sects etc.?

On this issue we were discussing, it doesn't appear that there IS, in fact, very much disagreement among them.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

On this issue we were discussing, it doesn't appear that there IS, in fact, very much disagreement among them.

There are at least 7 different atonement theories, all of them explaining the reason for Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[Albion]

There are at least 7 different atonement theories, all of them explaining the reason for Jesus' sacrifice.

That would help our examination of this issue. List them for us, please.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

They have already been discussed on this forum: Atonement view

 

[Albion]

They have already been discussed on this forum: Atonement view

Okay, but those are not seven different answers to the question. They are seven slightly different explanations of the same basic answer, i.e. how God in his mercy (or kindness) provided a way for fallen humanity to be saved (through the incarnation and the crucifixion) .

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

how God in his mercy (or kindness) provided a way for fallen humanity to be saved (through the incarnation and the crucifixion)

I'm not denying that He did provide that way. But I want to know the reason for why that particular way was necessary. And that reason is not in the Bible. It says that Jesus died for our sins. I know that. I'm not disputing that. But the phrase is vague. Why did our sins require anyone to die for them? Why was death a factor in this equation in the first place?

The general explanation is that: "God is life, so turning away from life means going towards death." Then why don't demons die?

One answer to this question would be: "it's talking about a spiritual death, we die spiritually". Well, then why was it necessary for Jesus to die physically? Why couldn't He just die spiritually?

 

[Albion]

I'm not denying that He did provide that way. But I want to know the reason for why that particular way was necessary.

No, you initiated this debate by asserting that he was not kind or merciful, as Christians believe him to be.

If you now want to move along to the next question, one that arises only after we've settled the first one, that's all right.

Why was that way necessary, you ask. Well, SOMETHING of that variety would HAVE TO be necessary if mankind was helpless in its fallen state and had no chance at salvation. I suppose that God could have changed the course he actually did take, but he was the one who had to act to accomplish it, since men were incapable.

And that reason is not in the Bible.

There are all sorts of unanswered questions. The Bible is divine revelation, not an encyclopedia that explains every last thing that the mind of man can come up with and wonder about.

As a matter of fact, the Bible itself testifies that there is much more we can know, and this will be revealed to the soul after death, but for the moment we who are incapable of comprehending most of it in this life have been given what we need to know in order to be reunited with God eternally. That's what underlies everything that's in Scripture.

It says that Jesus died for our sins. I know that. I'm not disputing that. But the phrase is vague. Why did our sins require anyone to die for them? Why was death a factor in this equation in the first place?

Once again, the Bible, which you have read, explains that death was one of the consequences of Adam and Eve's sins. Everything else that's physical has an end, but humanity was created by a loving God to be like the angels and endowed with life eternal. Our first parents chose to break the bond with God and lost that gift.