Featured The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

By simply studying the scriptures - period! Concerning "the false accusation" it was you that freely admitted that the PST theory was in your own words "impossible."

Hardly! I have explained my position and reasoning behind it with much scriptures.

The secular historical record is namely that "secular" and uninspired, and incomplete and more often wrong than right. You are assuming contrary to Christ's promise that he would be with NT Christianity as summarized in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20) and as revealed in the New Testament has failed, and that Catholic history is "Christian." Far from it!

I have answered every single question you have posed.

Again, these very assertions presume it was not taught or believed between the first century and the Reformation and based upon what? Based solely upon uninspired, incomplete and often errant Catholic history.

If so, you have not done too well in demonstrating my "version" is unbiblical at any point!

It is so amazing you have such great faith in Roman Catholic historians and secular history. In other words if Rome does not provide a written record it can't exist.

 

In other words, Rome is your final authority and no one is capable of studying the Bible and coming to the position I hold! That is very revealing indeed!

Why are you not a Roman Catholic then???? According to secular history Roman Catholicism is the only true church of Christ between the 4th and 16th century. Why are you not a Roman Catholic then IF no other kind of Christianity existed???

 

Again, very revealing as you are now claiming that the PST position is not Biblical in origin, but is Roman Catholic in origin as "all roads do lead to Rome" is your estimation of the PST view and not "some roads" with regard to pst.

 

If you are not questioning that reasoning then why are we discussing this doctrine? It seems to me that you are questioning the very foundations of this doctrine and denying the very fundamental meaning of the terms "penal" and "substitutionary" that the whole doctrine rests upon.

No singular text teaches all the facets of PST just as no single text teaches all the facets of the Trinity. However, all facets are taught in the Sacrificial laws. So, if I simply present one text all you have to say is where is this facet taught in that text and so on and so forth. Like the Trinity, PST is the Biblical teaching of the accumulation of all relevant texts when taken together. However, all facets of PST are clearly seen in the sacrifice as prescribed in the book of Leviticus.

 

I am sorry if that offends you, but I did get to that position by Scripture alone. You don't see me quoting anyone. I admit that the terms are extra biblical but the doctrine as presented in scripture demands the terms to aptly express it. However, before using those terms I simply used biblical terms and illustrations.

I can swallow the idea that that the precise terms may not have been previously used to articulate this truth, but I totally reject that the substance of this doctrine was lost to mankind based upon Roman Catholic monks version of history. Before I was introduced to these extra-biblical terms I simply used Biblical terms but without a change of doctrine at all.

Again, you are confusing certain formulated expression with the abiding truth of the doctrine. Roman Catholicism is merely christianized paganism that has usurped and dominated secular expression of NT. Christianity, but NT Christianity has continued to exist right up to through the Reformation period distinct and separate from both Catholicism and Reformed Catholicism under the epitaph of "heretic" by harlot Rome.

Absolute nonsense! Punishment for sin is a clear Biblical concept and Gehenna is its reality apart from PST.

Sin is not a "thing" but the violation of God's Law, coming short of the "glory of God" absolute rebellion against the rule and righteousness of God.

If this were even close to truth,then it should be instilled in all who claim to be Christian but it is not! So much for your logic. I believe you are describing yourself, you are certainly not describing me. Please don't attribute to me things I don't believe are true of me. You paint with too wide of a brush which in fact, when applied according to your logic is proven wrong.

A false theory in my opinion.

Your reasoning here is oxymoronic as you are claiming scriptures are not the cause for that reasoning but such reasonings are independent of the scriptures and originate with the Reformation. I utterly deny that! My reasonings are a direct INSEPARABLE result of those scriptures.

 

I find this statement absolutely abhorrent! Not due to my emotions, but due to the impact of that statement upon Biblical truth! God's "honor" and "punishment" are not antithetical but partners in God's Word. To claim that Calvin is responsible for changing the Biblical focus from "honor" to "punishment" is an ugly lie, and ugly perversion of God's Word. Punishment for sin is such a Biblical fundamental that is even found in the home in reaction to rebellion against parental authority as symbolized by the "rod." It is established in civil government (Rom.13:1-5) worldwide. It permeates the judicial system of Israel in the Old Testament. The "honor" of God is vindicated in just retribution for sin.

This is a deeply disturbing statement as it indicates you have no clue as to the biblical nature of sin. No theologian, who even has a superficial understanding of the Biblical nature of sin would dare define or describe it as "a thing." However, that is precisely what a person is forced to do when they deny there is but ONE STANDARD of righteousness and sin is the violation of that standard.

God's HEART is his MORAL attribute and determined thoughts from that MORAL SOURCE in God is known as God's "will" and when that "will" is expressed in words it is known as God's LAW. The Summation of God's MORAL NATURE is provided in a MORAL value called "love." The Law is always MORAL as it originates from God's MORAL NATURE (his heart). The written Law of God is the written revelation of His own righteousness and that precisely why BOTH can be summarized in the chief of moral values - LOVE.

You simply don't get that! That does not originate with the Reformation, with Rome,but from a careful evaluation of God's Word.

 

You are saying that PST is a "systematic and REASONED theory or theology based on scripture, and yet is is that very REASONING you are challenging! Well if your challenge disproves the reasoning then it disproves the theory and if the reasoning is "based on scripture" and you disprove it then are you not saying it is unscriptural rather than "based on scripture"??????

 

If your theology is not composed of reasonings as a direct and inseparable consequence of Scripture, then you better give up your theology and find one that can be reasoned inseparably from Scripture. I did not say my reasonings are the cause and scripture is the result, I said scripture is the cause and my reasonings are the result. That is not heresy that is the only true basis for sound doctrine.

You are making this assumption not based on Scripture but based wholly upon incomplete,uninspired and often erroneous writings preserved by Rome. Like Rome, the bible is not final authority in your logic but councils, traditions and uninspired opinions of men. I don't care if you like what I said or agree with what I said. Proper Biblical understanding is not dependent upon uninspired, incomplete and often erroneous opnions by fallen men. God has been teaching this truth to us "heretics" all through the Paganized Roman Catholic existence by His Spirit (1 Jn. 2:29). This truth is not dependent upon the terms "penal" or "substitutionary" but upon the biblical language that means the very same thing, just as the doctrine of the Trinity was not invented in the 4th century nor depended upon the term "trinity" found in the scriptures but has been the revealed truth from New Testament times to his people who were killed and treated as "heretics" by the Great Whore and her protestant daughters.

 

That is not what you are saying! Either PST is biblical based or it is not! If it is,then the reasonings to support that theory must also be Biblical based or that theory is false. In truth you believe those reasonings to be false and therefore you are repudiating the very PST you claim is Biblical based and redefining it into some other kind of PST based on your reasonings or else there would be no discussion.