Penal Substitution

[mandym]

Isaiah 53:6 - “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
Isaiah 53:12 - “yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.”
Romans 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
2 Corinthians 5:21 - “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Galatians 3:13 - “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.”
Hebrews 10:1–4 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Do you hold to penal substitution? Why or why not. No answer is valid without scriptural support for each assertion.

 

[Aaron]

Looks like you pretty much established it right there.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yep! All those texts you listed, plus a few more. 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' 'By His wounds we are healed.'. Leviticus 16.

Absolutely vital doctrine. No hope without it.

Steve

 

[Amy.G]

Of course. How could one be called a Christian and not believe it?

 

[preachinjesus]

I can't answer the poll because it doesn't provide the answer I would hold to:

It is a correct doctrine among other views of the atonement which are also taught in Scripture.

I'm all for penal substitutionary atonement, but I also recognize other views of the atonement as equally valid.

 

[Tom Butler]

I can't answer the poll because it doesn't provide the answer I would hold to:

It is a correct doctrine among other views of the atonement which are also taught in Scripture.

I'm all for penal substitutionary atonement, but I also recognize other views of the atonement as equally valid.

Other views? Such as?

 

[freeatlast]

Do you hold to penal substitution? Why or why not. No answer is valid without scriptural support for each assertion.

The scripture you gave are fine. They prove your question to be a yes.

 

[Aaron]

Other views? Such as?

That Christ is not also our substitute receiving the punishment of the law, but also our substitute in satisfying its righteous requirements.

 

[Tom Butler]

That Christ is not also our substitute receiving the punishment of the law, but also our substitute in satisfying its righteous requirements.

Oh, okay. That squares with Isaiah 53:11

He shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied.

 

[preachinjesus]

Other views? Such as?

Historically in the Church there have a number of views considered orthodox that give proper teaching on the atonement. Penal substitutionary, while popular since the Reformation, can stand together with the others. They include:

Scapegoating satistfaction theory
Governmental atonement
Christus Victor
Ransom view of atonoment

These are broader categories, each fully defensible via Scripture.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Penal substitution is a Calvinistic theory influenced by Anselm's Satisfaction theory. It is abhorrent and has done much harm.

The penal substitution theory was not taught in the early church. The ransom theory was nearly universally accepted in this period.

Apparently some think that church history and theology began with Calvin, that the first century Christians were Calvinists, and that even Jesus was a Calvinist.

 

[convicted1]

I agree with the verses posted in the OP. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Oldtimer]

OK folks, here goes. Often topics here are way over my head. But, I'm trying, using Proverbs 2:3-6 as the basis for doing so and 2 Tim 2:15 as the objective. Freely admit that I've got a long ways to go in my quest to make up to some small degree for so many wasted years with my dusty Bible sitting on a shelf.

I can't vote in the poll because I don't know what penal substitution means? Would someone be so kind as to explain in laymen's terms?

 

[mandym]

OK folks, here goes. Often topics here are way over my head. But, I'm trying, using Proverbs 2:3-6 as the basis for doing so and 2 Tim 2:15 as the objective. Freely admit that I've got a long ways to go in my quest to make up to some small degree for so many wasted years with my dusty Bible sitting on a shelf.

I can't vote in the poll because I don't know what penal substitution means? Would someone be so kind as to explain in laymen's terms?

In short Christ died on the cross in place of us. He took our sin penalty as if He was the sinner.

 

[Aaron]

Historically in the Church there have a number of views considered orthodox that give proper teaching on the atonement. Penal substitutionary, while popular since the Reformation, can stand together with the others. They include:

Scapegoating satistfaction theory
Governmental atonement
Christus Victor
Ransom view of atonoment

These are broader categories, each fully defensible via Scripture.

How many sacrifices and offerings are according to the law? Many. How many offerings did Christ make? One. The lesson in the Sin Offering is only one aspect of the efficacy of Christ's one offering. It is not the same lesson as that of the Burnt Offering, but neither does it negate it.

 

[Aaron]

Penal substitution is a Calvinistic theory influenced by Anselm's Satisfaction theory. It is abhorrent and has done much harm.

The penal substitution theory was not taught in the early church. The ransom theory was nearly universally accepted in this period.

Apparently some think that church history and theology began with Calvin, that the first century Christians were Calvinists, and that even Jesus was a Calvinist.

Penal substitution did not originate with Calvin. It was revealed through Moses.

 

[mandym]

Penal substitution is a Calvinistic theory influenced by Anselm's Satisfaction theory. It is abhorrent and has done much harm.

It is straight from scripture and has done no harm. I am not a Calvinist but neither am I from the theological left. So tell us all who has it harmed?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is straight from scripture and has done no harm. I am not a Calvinist but neither am I from the theological left. So tell us all who has it harmed?

I am not from the theological left, either, although you keep trying to paint me into that corner. I hate extremes -- of right or left.

Straight from scripture but unknown in the early church. Hmmm....

 

[kyredneck]

I can't answer the poll because it doesn't provide the answer I would hold to:

It is a correct doctrine among other views of the atonement which are also taught in Scripture.

I'm all for penal substitutionary atonement, but I also recognize other views of the atonement as equally valid.

That Christ is not also our substitute receiving the punishment of the law, but also our substitute in satisfying its righteous requirements.

Historically in the Church there have a number of views considered orthodox that give proper teaching on the atonement. Penal substitutionary, while popular since the Reformation, can stand together with the others. They include:

Scapegoating satistfaction theory
Governmental atonement
Christus Victor
Ransom view of atonoment

These are broader categories, each fully defensible via Scripture.

How many sacrifices and offerings are according to the law? Many. How many offerings did Christ make? One. The lesson in the Sin Offering is only one aspect of the efficacy of Christ's one offering. It is not the same lesson as that of the Burnt Offering, but neither does it negate it.

Like a multifaceted gem.

 

[glfredrick]

Historically in the Church there have a number of views considered orthodox that give proper teaching on the atonement. Penal substitutionary, while popular since the Reformation, can stand together with the others. They include:

Scapegoating satistfaction theory
Governmental atonement
Christus Victor
Ransom view of atonoment

These are broader categories, each fully defensible via Scripture.

All of the above listed theories of the atonement describe some part of the atonement, for it is the hinge-pin of salvation and encompases all aspects of human life and hope. That is why scholars down through the ages have found evidence for each of the various theories listed above.

No one fully develops all of what the atonement accomplished, but taken together we get a much fuller view.

That being said, the core doctrine is indeed penal substitution. Without the imputed righteousness of Christ we have no hope, for Christ is not "just" a good example to follow, nor a moral equivalence by which we can compare ourselves to others, nor a righteous and chivalrous King fighting for us, or just one who had deep pockets to pay a ransom. He was all that and more -- His righteousness is our salvation and when He became our sin so that we could be imputed His righteousness, penal substitution occured on our behalf according to the grace AND justice of God.