I’ve spent quite a bit of time these last few days talking and thinking about the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, what atonement is, and how it is achieved. Particularly it was a discussion on the relevance of penal substitution.
In my opinion, there’s no question that it’s a valid theory heavily supported by Scripture. Isaiah 53 and Hebrews 9-10 stood out the most this weekend. It’s really difficult, impossible it seems, for me to find a perspective from which it is unbiblical. But I’ve been surprised by the number of people who disagree, and their adamance about its lack of Biblical support.
I have no respect for the willful disregard of scripture. Accidental ignorance and innocent misunderstandings I accept, but to intentionally ignore clear statements is something different.
Now, it would be easy to place the charge of selective reading at my feet, and it would be improper for me to ignore it; but in the face of that criticism I would try to see what I have not been seeing. But what do you say to someone who looks to the New Testament and say they see no support for a doctrine of Hell?
Ron Amundson
Imho, there is a huge stretch between saying there is no hell, and that the penal substitution theory is not supported by scripture. If anything, the hell issue is a non-sequitor.
However, I do admit that if one is an ardent believer of penal substition theory, it does seem possible to link the existance or non-existance of hell to the discussion. I’m not, thus the non-sequitor analysis. Its not a matter of willful disregard, nor do I believe it to be a misunderstanding. To me, it is clear that penal substition is not Biblically supported. As I read your entry, the opposite seems to be the case. So… where do we go from hear, the views are 180 degrees opposed, but the scriptures we use to develop our answers are the same.
I think it comes down to a reference frame… we all bring our biases and prior experience/education to the table. We assume others have similiar beliefs to our own. Then when we try to explain a specific view, the reference frames are so different, convergence becomes near impossible. Perhaps one could step back, and look at reference frames first, before looking at the outcomes of viewing scripture within a specific frame? Not sure, and certainly reference frames are not so simple to dialog upon, but perhaps its a start?
Of course atonement theories are not exactly the easiest thing to dialog over either. The major ones all have some level of commonality. Far outliers, such as no doctrine of hell are another matter entirely.
More from authorCharles
Yes, the hell issue was a non-sequitor, I meant it to be. It was just an example of someone ignoring scripture. Though in my discussion this weekend someone said that if we find no support for the doctrine of hell, then penal substitution is unbiblical.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on why penal substitution is not supported. How do you deal with the passages in Isaiah and Hebrews, and others like them?
To be sure, the atonement has so many valid angles that no one theory can encompass the whole of its implications and effects. But, as a function – an element – of Christ’s work, how can it be denied that he stepped forward and bore our punishment?
The frame of reference issue is a big one. If we take our theological debates back to this point, I think we’ll find that all of our doctrinal disputes are actually philosophical in nature; we bring different views of Scripture, God, Jesus, and humanity to the table, which means that instead of talking about two sides of the same coin, we’re probably not even both talking about money.
Ron Amundson
I like your analysis that much of this comes back to an underlying philosophy, and as such, is likely the root of disagreement. Thus, it likely makes sense to explore that arena a bit. Lets start out to see where we agree with one another, and then go into atonement theories, and from there the scriptural backup or lack thereof.
I’m coming from a mix of ransom and Christus Victor, and a tad of government theory. My main aversion to penal substitution is its resulting influence upon interpreting other scriptures, which leads to some outcomes which I feel are in conflict with scripture as a whole. I do however concede that support for Penal Substition does exist in Hebrews and Isaiah but with a caveat that such support has to be held in isolation.
I’ll try to put something together this week, but am a tad busy, and atonement is very complex
More from authorTheodore A. Jones
The common denomanator in the comtemporary conjectures that attempt to answer “Why was Jesus crucified?” assume that Jesus crucifixion is a direct benefit like the OT animal sacrifice was. But no man’s death if it has been caused by bloodshed is a direct benefit for anyone else. For it is the preexisting requirment of God that any man’s life that is taken by bloodshed is directly accountable to God. In this regard I think you need to pay very close attention to this oath of God.
“And for Your life blood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from each animal. And from each man too I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.” Gen. 9:5 NIV. So then it is evident by God’s sworn testimony that at some future point each man too will be required to give a direct account to God in regard to one man’s life which is to be lost by bloodshed. This is the oath that is referenced in Heb. 6:17 and it is unchangeable or immutable. But there is another immutable or unchangeable thing mention in conjuction to the oath. In Heb. 7:12b a change also of the law has been made after Jesus’ crucifixion. This is very significant and highly detrimental to the proponents of substitutionary atonement. For the assumed core objective of substitutionary atonement is that the crucifixion of Jesus was for the sole purpose of satisfying the law’s demand for recomopense. By God making a change to the law after Jesus was crucified who would have ever thought this was a possibility?
There is another major earthquake for the proponents of substutituinary atonement that they usually dismiss. In 1 Cor. 2:6-8 Paul says that there was no possibility for anyone to have been able to determine the actual reason for Jesus’ crucifixion before he was crucified. For if the reason for Jesus’ crucifixion could have been determined from any source Jesus would have never been crucified. So to keep the Way that Jesus’ crucifixion was to perfect it remained the confidence of God, a secret, until God revealed it to the apostles. At any rate I am sure that the proponenets of substitutionary atonement know much more than any apostle could have known and will argue with Paul’s statement. They have in the past so I am certian of what they will do in the future by willfully disregarding the Scripture.
“It is NOT those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who OBEY the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom.2:13.
What law? The law which has been added to the law of God. “The law was added so that the trespasss might increase.” Rom. 5:20. The secrect God held in his own mind until after Jesus’was crucified and had ascended back into heaven was that by Jesus crucifixion all men became accountable directly to God for a man’s life that has been lost by bloodshed. Therefore the small narrow gate or Way into the kingdom of God is by the faith of confessing directly to God that you are sorry Jesus’ life was lost when he was crucified and be baptized into this Way of faith for the forgiveness of all sins. But if you won’t, no matter how foolish it seems to you, you will disobey a law of God for which there is no forgiveness. Since there is no longer any sacrifice for sin or (i.e. there is no way any other sacrifice will produce a sin that will be a sufficent reason for God to make any more changes to his law Heb. 10:26)the only Way to escape from the penalty of eternal death is by the faith of confessing directly to God that you are sorry Jesus was crucified. There is no other possible Way the Lord’s command Acts 2:38, can be obeyed or it is a willful disregard of Scripture.
Charles
This argument is pretty weak.
First, the oath referenced in Hebrews 6:17 is made to Abraham (v. 13), not Noah, and is probably the promise to Abraham in Gen. 22, which makes “the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised.” (NIV).
Second, the change in the law in Heb. 7 is about who can be a priest. Jesus was not a Levite, but became high priest “in the order of Melchizedek.”
Third, PSA doesn’t teach that “the crucifixion of Jesus was for the sole purpose of satisfying the law’s demand for recomopense.” It is the main purpose, but there are many others. And God making a change to regulations of the priesthood after the crucifixion has nothing to do with the nature of the sacrifice.
“Paul says that there was no possibility for anyone to have been able to determine the actual reason for Jesus’ crucifixion before he was crucified.” All theories of atonement were suggested after the crucifixion. I don’t know where you were going with this argument.
Your last paragraph attempts to tie together several poor assertions into a whole. It doesn’t work. I personally am glad Jesus was crucified, otherwise I would be totally lost. How can we be expected to express sorrow over our only means of salvation?