Featured What is Penal Substitution Atonement

Don't put words in my mouth that I repudiate!!! Christ provided LEGAL SATISFACTION as defined by Law. Where there is no LEGAL satisfaction there is no JUST satisfaction. HIs punishment was JUST in his role as a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE for sin. The term "substitute" is meaningless in your theory as your theory denies he acted as our substitute in death as the Bible defines death. The term "satisfaction" is meaningless in your view as it has nothing to do with the LEGAL and LAWFUL conseqences of sin as defined by Law.

False again! The covenant is based upon God's JUSTICE which you repudiate as the grounds for defining SATISFACTION or SUBSTITUTION.

Your view of the atonement is a half truth and therefore false.

 

Can't read too well can you? I never denied you believed in Christ's death! I said your "view" of satisfaction does not require death but only requires righteousness as the basis for satisfaction. You repudiate any LEGAL basis as you understand "legal" basis to be "retributive" and you deny satisfaction has any "retributive" necessity. Since "sin" is by Biblical definition the LEGAL basis for "death" with regard to SATISFYING the Law then your position denies the necessity of Christ's death other than a mere fulfillment of type and thus considered part of his "obedience" rather than satisfaction of justice in the role of a "substitute" before Law.

 

LOL!! We will let the readers decide who is wrong or right. However, your view repudiates death as any necessary aspect of satisfaction for JUSTICE against sin.

 

What heretic hasn't used this argument. Look at the foolishness of your statement - "Christ fulfilled THE LAW. He died UNDER THE LAW. He became a CURSE FOR US. But nowhere in Scripture does it say this was LAWFUL punishment" Yes, I substituted the word "lawful" for "retributive" because you define JUST or LAWFUL punishment to be "retributive" as though it is an act of revenge. [edit].

 

Readers, let this post sink in. Jon's position logically repudiates the death of Christ as a necessity for JUST satisfaction against sin. The death of Christ only fits in his theory under "obedience" rather than any LEGAL and SUBSTITIONARY NECESSITY for satisfaction against sin.

 

You view it as a "payback" or to "get even" type of penalty which is more akin to revenge than JUST recompense or a RIGHTEOUS application of Law. BTW "retributive" can be defined as "payback".

 

What a falsehood! I have provided Biblical text after Biblical text. Particularly Isaiah 53:10-11 and the laying on of hands by the priest on the day of Atonment (Lev. 16).

However, this is all a ruse to avoid his problem - his view repudiates the death of Christ as necessary for LAWFUL satisfaction against sin.

 

More double talk (as you confess you are guilty of what you are condemning me for and denying I am a man). However, I would rather appeal to the readers as talking to a wall is worthless.

The scriptures have been presented time and time again. It is the Father that laid upon him our iniquities. It is the Father that sent him to the cross. It is the Father that is satisfied by the "travail of his soul." Sin is a LEGAL consequence and God is the LAWGIVER and he was "made to be sin for us" and that phrase has no meaning apart from DIVINE JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

Again, your view repudiates the necessity of Christ's death to SATISFY JUSTICE against sin.

 

You are multiplying words to cover your error. Drop the term "retributive" and simply use the term r "JUST" or "LAWFUL" or punishment prescribed by God's LAW. You won't drop it because it makes you look bad if the truth of your position is spelled out as a position that repudiates JUST consequences or LAWFUL consequences. Your view denies/repudiates that the death of Christ was necessary to satisfy JUSTICE.

 

Of course you won't drop that terminology because if you used the terms the Bible provides (Just, righteous, lawful, etc.) would reveal what your view is - foolish and false.

You want scripture, how about this one:


5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:

Do you deny that in verse 6 and verse 10 it is the Lord that did these things to him? We all agree that with regard to his own person he was sinless and did not justly deserve any of this ACCORDING TO GODS JUST AND HOLY LAW. May I ask you what JUST basis did God have for doing these things to a righteous man FOR SINNERS OR IN BEHALF OF SINNERS? How could God be righteous and "be PLEASED to bruise him and...put him to grief" for sinners? Can you provide a JUST or LEGAL basis without resorting to HIS LAW? Must it not be found in the substitutionary nature of the sacrificial system UNDER LAW?

 

Let's not play with terms. By "blood" of the atonement is meant DEATH or shedding blood UNTO DEATH. There is no remission of sins without DEATH. That is the LEGAL basis for remission of sins. The term "sins" is the LEGAL consequence of violation of THE LAW. Christ's death was a LEGAL NECESSITY for SATIFYING the wrath of God. The wrath of God is his response to violation of HIS LAW. Hence, there is no such thing as "satisfaction" for sin apart from the death of Christ. His righteousness cannot satisfy the violation of the law. Only his death can satisfy the violation of the Law. Hence where there is no LEGAL satsifaction with regard to law there is no satisfaction with regard to sin.