What is Penal Substitution Atonement

[Yeshua1]

It is unfortunate you can't comprehend the distinction here as it excludes you from holding an informed stance (between Penal Substitution and Substitutuon/Satisfaction) and arguing the issue. My recommendation is that you read Luther and Calvin on the topic until the difference becomes clear (only because the distinction you can't grasp is so clear between Calvin and Luther).

My argument, quite simply, is that it never was our punishment that satisfied the demands of sin and wrath but Christ Himself. The difference is that you picture God satisfying His law of retributive justice by inflicting on Christ the punishment we, as saved individuals, would face at Judgment and I think that far too man-centered an explanation. Instead I believe Christ bore our sin in the flesh, suffered and died to redeem us with His blood. Christ satisfied the demands against us not by being punished with our punishment but because He is God.

Your view is too humanistic an approach. When you start looking at this with Christ and not man at the center your view may change.

Its BOTH going on here, as there are both aspects involved in PST, as while Jesus HAD to be morally perfect and sinless to be able to die in the stead of sinners such as you and me, he ALSO had to endure and face while on the Cross exactly what lost sinners will experience under the wrath of God towards all sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

And Luther wasn't? Is that really your claim? What about Anabaptist theology? Did they also disregard Scripture? What about fifteen centuries of Christians?

Your claim that what the OT/Jesus and Paul really thought was lost for 15 centuries only to be discovered by John Calvin is silly. Do you think an angel showed him, perhaps on a scroll he could only read with magic eyeglasses?

This is one reason Calvinism gets a bad name. All the talk about "Scripture alone" and it boils down to what they think OT priests, Jesus and Paul thought instead of "it is written".

It doesn't work that way, brother. Both Calvin and Luther saw the same teachings in Scripture, but each through a different context. Your context is extra-biblical (again, this is why you can't defend it sola scriptura...for all the hype, you've abandoned scripture alone).

My points would be that Calvin rediscovered the biblical truth regarding PST, as that was a doctrine held always in the church, but had really waned, especially during the time when by and large the true Gospel had waned and been neglected. I think God gave back to the Church both the understanding of the-true Gospel and the PST in the Reformation.

 

[JonC]

Its BOTH going on here, as there are both aspects involved in PST, as while Jesus HAD to be morally perfect and sinless to be able to die in the stead of sinners such as you and me, he ALSO had to endure and face while on the Cross exactly what lost sinners will experience under the wrath of God towards all sins!

The "both and" argument doesn't work with the actual argument here, brother.

 

[Yeshua1]

The "both and" argument doesn't work with the actual argument here, brother.

Well, Jesus qualified for being my substitute due to His sinless life, per Luther, and He had to endure and experience "Hell" while upon the Cross, just as lost sinners will for all eternity!

 

[JonC]

My points would be that Calvin rediscovered the biblical truth regarding PST, as that was a doctrine held always in the church, but had really waned, especially during the time when by and large the true Gospel had waned and been neglected. I think God gave back to the Church both the understanding of the-true Gospel and the PST in the Reformation.

Yet your only support is some hidden knowledge about what Paul and the others thought (nothing about what was actually written in Scripture). Do you not at least see how others can view your claim as very subjective (especially if the others hold to sola scriptura)?

 

[JonC]

Well, Jesus qualified for being my substitute due to His sinless life, per Luther,

Well, kinda. Luther pointed to Christ's merit but also to His blood in the fact that Jesus is God.

and He had to endure and experience "Hell" while upon the Cross, just as lost sinners will for all eternity!

Yet this part is not what Luther taught. Do you see how you are mixing up ideas (here your opinion with Luther....in another verse, your opinion with Scripture)? You go on without any appearance of recognizing the shift.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet your only support is some hidden knowledge about what Paul and the others thought (nothing about what was actually written in Scripture). Do you not at least see how others can view your claim as very subjective (especially if the others hold to sola scriptura)?

Not really, as Calvin and others like minded were appealing to the scriptures, unlike say NT Wright for example, who appeals to historical sources just as much as the Bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, kinda. Luther pointed to Christ's merit but also to His blood in the fact that Jesus is God.
Yet this part is not what Luther taught. Do you see how you are mixing up ideas (here your opinion with Luther....in another verse, your opinion with Scripture)? You go on without any appearance of recognizing the shift.

Again Luther got one aspect of PST correct, and Calvin completed it!

 

[JonC]

Not really, as Calvin and others like minded were appealing to the scriptures, unlike say NT Wright for example, who appeals to historical sources just as much as the Bible!

We were speaking of Calvin and Luther, and yes - both of them appeal to Scripture. I'm not sure how you get to NT Wright (I've not mentioned his teaching....in fact, I'm not really sure what it is he teaches here), but I'm sure he probably appeals to Scripture as well.

The only person not appealing to Scripture here is YOU. I ask you for Scripture and you say "the OT/Jesus and Paul believed in PST" as if this supposed Gnostic belief settled the issue.

 

[Yeshua1]

We were speaking of Calvin and Luther, and yes - both of them appeal to Scripture. I'm not sure how you get to NT Wright (I've not mentioned his teaching....in fact, I'm not really sure what it is he teaches here), but I'm sure he probably appeals to Scripture as well.

The only person not appealing to Scripture here is YOU. I ask you for Scripture and you say "the OT/Jesus and Paul believed in PST" as if this supposed Gnostic belief settled the issue.

Isaiah 53, as well as how Pauline Justification is explained to us in Romans, would BOTH be defining for us that the Lord saw this as Calvin did!

 

[JonC]

Again Luther got one aspect of PST correct, and Calvin completed it!

But they disagree. Can't you understand that???? AND this wasn't something that originated with Luther. PSA did originate with Calvin IF it demands a belief that God punished Jesus with the punishment the lost will receive at Judgment (which, per you, it does).

Both of these guys were alive at the same time. And they disagreed on this aspect of the atonement (not that it was substitutionary and penal, but about God punishing Jesus with the Hell that would have been our punishment). In fact, Calvin discusses this disagreement in his Institutes.

My point is that PSA is a fairly new idea to our faith. No one articulated the Atonement as God punishing Jesus with what will be the punishment of the lost at Judgment for 15 centuries of Christian faith. Not even one person. Can't you grasp that? This doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean it's new and apparently not so big an issue to make post-Reformation "heroes of the faith" heretics.

Yes, they believed Christ died a substitutionary death. Yes, this was penal in nature as He bore our sins. But what we are talking about are the parts you add and pretend they always existed....you know....those parts you will never reply with Scripture to back up (because none exists).

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53, as well as how Pauline Justification is explained to us in Romans, would BOTH be defining for us that the Lord saw this as Calvin did!

But only Calvin saw this in the framework of retributive justice. Paul doesn't quite go there. None of the ECF's go there. Luther didn't go there. But Calvin did.

 

[JonC]

unlike say NT Wright for example, who appeals to historical sources just as much as the Bible!

It just struck me...is this not exactly what you've been trying to do across several threads? I ask for Scripture stating that God punished Jesus with the punishment the lost will receive at Judgment (Hell/Spiritual Death) and you try to link it to other people in history rather than providing Scripture????

Again, I'm not sure about your "man crush" on N.T. Wright (sooner or later you seem to toss him in the mix, not to support your view but to argue against him). But you have failed to even try to bring Scripture to prove your words.

 

[Yeshua1]

But only Calvin saw this in the framework of retributive justice. Paul doesn't quite go there. None of the ECF's go there. Luther didn't go there. But Calvin did.

Jesus and Paul saw it in same fashion as calvin did though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus was forsaken by God, suffered as the Sin bearer before God, correct?

 

[JonC]

Jesus and Paul saw it in same fashion as calvin did though!

Since you cannot provide a passage of Scripture, are you saying that God gave you a vision stating this? Or is it just Gnosticism...maybe something you learned from the Freemasons? Or is it that your tradition is enough to satisfy as Scripture?

 

[Yeshua1]

Since you cannot provide a passage of Scripture, are you saying that God gave you a vision stating this? Or is it just Gnosticism...maybe something you learned from the Freemasons? Or is it that your tradition is enough to satisfy as Scripture?

None of the above, as jesus was the Sin bearer, and experienced the separation and suffering in our place that all lost would under the Wrath of God towards sin!

 

[JonC]

Jesus was forsaken by God, suffered as the Sin bearer before God, correct?

Scripture states that men esteemed Him as forsaken by God (Ps. 22). And on the Cross Jesus cried out "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?". So we know that the Father laid upon the Son our iniquity. We know that Jesus bore our sins. And we know that this was the will of the Father that Jesus suffer at the hands of the Jews and they disown God's Holy and Righteous One, and put him to death. And this was the will of the Father.

But all of this is speaking of Jesus' physical death, not a spiritual death. God becoming man, dying at the hands of His own people, dying under the Law as a blasphemer, satisfies the demands of sin and wrath that was held against us.

What you add is that Jesus suffered the spiritual death of Hell as the Father punished Him with the punishment the lost will suffer at Judgment. This part is foreign to Scripture, foreign to Jesus' own words, foreign to Paul, to the Apostles, to the early church, to Christianity for 15 centuries, to Martin Luther, to the Anabaptists, to the majority of Christianity today. Yet it is the theory you have chosen to build upon. And you can't even find one verse that proves it as true.

 

[JonC]

None of the above, as jesus was the Sin bearer, and experienced the separation and suffering in our place that all lost would under the Wrath of God towards sin!

Don't read into this, but arguing here is like arguing with a Mormon. You have deep traditions that you hold as if they were Scripture. When pressed you just keep repeating your beliefs as if they were Scripture without ever providing a verse.

Since your entire belief system hinges on God punishing Jesus with the punishment the lost will receive at Judgment, have you ever wondered why all you can come up with is the claim....NEVER Scripture to back it up?

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture states that men esteemed Him as forsaken by God (Ps. 22). And on the Cross Jesus cried out "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?". So we know that the Father laid upon the Son our iniquity. We know that Jesus bore our sins. And we know that this was the will of the Father that Jesus suffer at the hands of the Jews and they disown God's Holy and Righteous One, and put him to death. And this was the will of the Father.

But all of this is speaking of Jesus' physical death, not a spiritual death. God becoming man, dying at the hands of His own people, dying under the Law as a blasphemer, satisfies the demands of sin and wrath that was held against us.

What you add is that Jesus suffered the spiritual death of Hell as the Father punished Him with the punishment the lost will suffer at Judgment. This part is foreign to Scripture, foreign to Jesus' own words, foreign to Paul, to the Apostles, to the early church, to Christianity for 15 centuries, to Martin Luther, to the Anabaptists, to the majority of Christianity today. Yet it is the theory you have chosen to build upon. And you can't even find one verse that proves it as true.

No, I am NOT saying that Jesus suffered spiritual death, as that is heresy, as WoF teach, but that in Hos person, Jesus suffered and experienced the wrath of God on Him in a punitive way, that he really did experience that time what sinners will feel, and yet He never ceased being God, nor sinless!