Penal Substitution

[JonC]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1130 Pacific/1830 GMT.

Thank you for your contribution, brother - I'm glad you joined the conversation.

And I see what you are very plainly saying about the topic. Within retributive justice the thread has reached a certain number of posts and, regardless of the thread itself or if it has repented and turned back to the OP, it will be closed. Using the principles of PSA, you would be justified to close a engaging new thread by @John of Japan in it’s place….as long as a thread is closed you are satisfied.

Under restorative justice, however, you would be just to forego the rule if the thread had begun to advance. He could not close another thread in place of this one because that would be unjust - this is the thread that has reached 160 posts. And the reason for closing this thread would be to maintain the forum itself – not to simply close threads.

Great illustration.

 

[Van]

Jesus could not actually die in the place of all sinners, foir that would mean not one sinner would be now not reconciled back to God!

The bible speaks of some who have been reconciled, therefore you assertion is once more unbiblical. BTW, scripture says Christ died as a ransom for all, and Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Anyone of the world who is transferred out of darkness into Christ has his sin burden removed (the circumcision of Christ) and is made alive together with Christ. Christ died for the sins of the whole world, therefore when anyone of the world is transferred into Him, their specific and individual sins are removed. In the phrase, by His stripes you have been healed refers to those who have been transferred into Christ.

PSA is bogus, but Subsitutionary Reconciliation is biblical. Christ is taking away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time as they are transferred into Christ. Behold, the gospel of Christ.

 

[agedman]

The bible speaks of some who have been reconciled, therefore you assertion is once more unbiblical. BTW, scripture says Christ died as a ransom for all, and Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Anyone of the world who is transferred out of darkness into Christ has his sin burden removed (the circumcision of Christ) and is made alive together with Christ. Christ died for the sins of the whole world, therefore when anyone of the world is transferred into Him, their specific and individual sins are removed. In the phrase, by His stripes you have been healed refers to those who have been transferred into Christ.

PSA is bogus, but Subsitutionary Reconciliation is biblical. Christ is taking away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time as they are transferred into Christ. Behold, the gospel of Christ.

Though I May not agree totally with how you worded some of this post, I do agree the blood was for all.

That what remains is the unfettered (by sin condemnation) reconciliation.

The difficulty remains between us as to how such reconciliation is both initiated and completed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps you can find a Scripture that actually states that God in rage punished His own self to the point of death.

I haven’t found it.

I NEVER said that God "punished Jesus in rage", but that the Father does have divine and real wrath towards sins and sinners who are not in Christ, and that He poured out that deserved wrath upon Jesus as our Sin bearer and substitute!

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly!!

Who did those things?

Did God reach down in rage and abuse His own Son as if He were some villain?

No, bur he did while on the Cross view jesus as bearing the sins of the redeemed, and as such he became sin for us in the sense that God in Him saw all of our sins, and had to pour out His divine wrath on Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

The bible speaks of some who have been reconciled, therefore you assertion is once more unbiblical. BTW, scripture says Christ died as a ransom for all, and Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Anyone of the world who is transferred out of darkness into Christ has his sin burden removed (the circumcision of Christ) and is made alive together with Christ. Christ died for the sins of the whole world, therefore when anyone of the world is transferred into Him, their specific and individual sins are removed. In the phrase, by His stripes you have been healed refers to those who have been transferred into Christ.

PSA is bogus, but Subsitutionary Reconciliation is biblical. Christ is taking away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time as they are transferred into Christ. Behold, the gospel of Christ.

God intended the death of jesus to save some or all sinners then?

 

[agedman]

I NEVER said that God "punished Jesus in rage", but that the Father does have divine and real wrath towards sins and sinners who are not in Christ, and that He poured out that deserved wrath upon Jesus as our Sin bearer and substitute!

I apologize for not being able to shorten my post, but the importance demands careful consideration.

First:
Where you picture the blood as specific to the elect, I do not hold to that exclusivity.

If the blood was to follow the OT type, it could not exclude anyone.

However, do not jump to the conclusion that there is no condemnation as some would attempt to cast discredit. For the unbeliever is condemned already, not from lack of blood, but lack of reconciliation belief. (John 3).

Therefore, contrary to the reformer thinking (in my opinion, obliged by the circumstances of that time) the wrath was not because of God being enraged by the presence of sin, but the fulfillment of prophecy the Father stated would take place.

Why would the Father be angry at what He had already established as what would occur? Was the Father angry at Satan appearing before Him in Job, for if ever there was a time to show anger it would be in the presence of the father of all lies?

Even in the human thinking, if one establishes a scheme that has no chance of success does one have the right to be disappointed, angry, take retribution if the scheme doesn't work? Of course not. The scheme failed because it was planned to fail.

Second:

In the thinking that God must balance the scales by being angry at sin and sinners, there is an element of merrit pay. One sins results in God’s anger at both sin and sinner and some manner of restitution is obliged.

However, I don’t see such playing out in the Scriptures as it seems some describe.

The principle is that sin earns death (wages of sin is death), and the eternal punishment is based upon belief, not sins.

Another principle is that God acknowledge the sinfulness and presented not wrath, but solution. (While we were yet sinners...)

A third principle is how does God display wrath throughout the Scriptures. His wrath occurs by Him withholding His protection and sustaining. In every time the wrath of God occurs, it is when He objects and rises in opposition. (Think of the typical courtroom when a judge opposes a lawyer). It is then humankind reap what is sown (destruction) and the nature unconstrained revolts (earthquake, famine...)

So, at the cross wrath it is shown through both human and natural events that God did have wrath, but He did not pour it out on the Son, He withheld support for the Son, allowing the ungodly natural forces of human and nature to be displayed. (Father, why have you forsaken me).

Christ knew this would transpire which is given in the Gethsemane prayers.

Having written all this, you can see that I place the limit of atonement not as a lack of blood, but a lack of the Father, by His Sovereign purpose, granting reconciliation to any but the elect.

The doctrines of Grace are very precious, but there is a need to allow a greater consistency with the presentations and types shown in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Though I May not agree totally with how you worded some of this post, I do agree the blood was for all.

That what remains is the unfettered (by sin condemnation) reconciliation.

The difficulty remains between us as to how such reconciliation is both initiated and completed.

I would add to this that it also depends on what is meant by reconciliation. If it is individual then it seems that some men will never be personally reconciled to God. If we are talking, however, about reconciliation in terms of mankind, then that may be another matter.

That is one problem with PSA. It seems to be more individualistic and man-centered on certain points than is Scripture itself.

 

[Yeshua1]

I apologize for not being able to shorten my post, but the importance demands careful consideration.

First:
Where you picture the blood as specific to the elect, I do not hold to that exclusivity.

If the blood was to follow the OT type, it could not exclude anyone.

However, do not jump to the conclusion that there is no condemnation as some would attempt to cast discredit. For the unbeliever is condemned already, not from lack of blood, but lack of reconciliation belief. (John 3).

Therefore, contrary to the reformer thinking (in my opinion, obliged by the circumstances of that time) the wrath was not because of God being enraged by the presence of sin, but the fulfillment of prophecy the Father stated would take place.

Why would the Father be angry at what He had already established as what would occur? Was the Father angry at Satan appearing before Him in Job, for if ever there was a time to show anger it would be in the presence of the father of all lies?

Even in the human thinking, if one establishes a scheme that has no chance of success does one have the right to be disappointed, angry, take retribution if the scheme doesn't work? Of course not. The scheme failed because it was planned to fail.

Second:

In the thinking that God must balance the scales by being angry at sin and sinners, there is an element of merrit pay. One sins results in God’s anger at both sin and sinner and some manner of restitution is obliged.

However, I don’t see such playing out in the Scriptures as it seems some describe.

The principle is that sin earns death (wages of sin is death), and the eternal punishment is based upon belief, not sins.

Another principle is that God acknowledge the sinfulness and presented not wrath, but solution. (While we were yet sinners...)

A third principle is how does God display wrath throughout the Scriptures. His wrath occurs by Him withholding His protection and sustaining. In every time the wrath of God occurs, it is when He objects and rises in opposition. (Think of the typical courtroom when a judge opposes a lawyer). It is then humankind reap what is sown (destruction) and the nature unconstrained revolts (earthquake, famine...)

So, at the cross wrath it is shown through both human and natural events that God did have wrath, but He did not pour it out on the Son, He withheld support for the Son, allowing the ungodly natural forces of human and nature to be displayed. (Father, why have you forsaken me).

Christ knew this would transpire which is given in the Gethsemane prayers.

Having written all this, you can see that I place the limit of atonement not as a lack of blood, but a lack of the Father, by His Sovereign purpose, granting reconciliation to any but the elect.

The doctrines of Grace are very precious, but there is a need to allow a greater consistency with the presentations and types shown in Scripture.

Is there a real Wrath of God directed towards sins or not?
Did Jesus purchase back the redeemed only by His blood/death, or all sinners?

 

[Yeshua1]

I would add to this that it also depends on what is meant by reconciliation. If it is individual then it seems that some men will never be personally reconciled to God. If we are talking, however, about reconciliation in terms of mankind, then that may be another matter.

That is one problem with PSA. It seems to be more individualistic and man-centered on certain points than is Scripture itself.

It actually provides for the means by which the wrath of God can be expatiated towards sin though, as it allows for us to received imputed rightiousness foreign to us, as the sinless one bore our due full wrath of God in our stead!

 

[JonC]

It actually provides for the means by which the wrath of God can be expatiated towards sin though, as it allows for us to received imputed rightiousness foreign to us, as the sinless one bore our due full wrath of God in our stead!

We already established God's wrath is not literally towards sin but towards the person who committed the sinful act (towards sin, singular. As is Pauls normal use of "sin"). So no, the verse you provided.....oh....wait....You never did provide a verse that proved your claim, now did you?

 

[agedman]

I would add to this that it also depends on what is meant by reconciliation. If it is individual then it seems that some men will never be personally reconciled to God. If we are talking, however, about reconciliation in terms of mankind, then that may be another matter.

That is one problem with PSA. It seems to be more individualistic and man-centered on certain points than is Scripture itself.

First,
Not everyone is and will be reconciled.

It didn’t stop the preaching of reconciliation.

I look at reconciliation as individual and as individuals are grouped the reconciliation remains individual loyalty to the group.

Second,
The PSA ( if I understand the history) was (as was Calvinism) modified into more exclusive thinking by the counsel of Dort.

The original thinking was not nearly as structurally askew from Scriptures in some areas as the counsel’s remodel work.

The actual limit of blood to the elect was by that group (relying on my recall).

It was as much politically motivated as it was socially desired.

Much of the Wesley movement to bring the gospel to the “less fortunate” is directly related to the long term results of the counsel of Dort.

 

[JonC]

First,
Not everyone is and will be reconciled.

It didn’t stop the preaching of reconciliation.

I look at reconciliation as individual and as individuals are grouped the reconciliation remains individual loyalty to the group.

Second,
The PSA ( if I understand the history) was (as was Calvinism) modified into more exclusive thinking by the counsel of Dort.

The original thinking was not nearly as structurally askew from Scriptures in some areas as the counsel’s remodel work.

The actual limit of blood to the elect was by that group (relying on my recall).

It was as much politically motivated as it was socially desired.

Much of the Wesley movement to bring the gospel to the “less fortunate” is directly related to the long term results of the counsel of Dort.

I agree completely with your first point. The Cross was God reconciling the world to Himself. I'm not as confident about Calvin's view simply because he adopted an understanding that had been considered unorthodox. Calvin took the position that justice focused on the crime and punishment - that a man could justly be punished in the place of another man. Before Calvin Thomas Aquinas refined the satisfaction theory to have Christ being punished, but made the distinction between satisfactory punishment and penal punishment (Luther maintained satisfactory punishment). But I do agree PSA became more narrow as Calvinism became more refined. Theory was built upon theory and PSA moved further and further away from Scripture.

 

[agedman]

I agree completely with your first point. The Cross was God reconciling the world to Himself. I'm not as confident about Calvin's view simply because he adopted an understanding that had been considered unorthodox. Calvin took the position that justice focused on the crime and punishment - that a man could justly be punished in the place of another man. Before Calvin Thomas Aquinas refined the satisfaction theory to have Christ being punished, but made the distinction between satisfactory punishment and penal punishment (Luther maintained satisfactory punishment). But I do agree PSA became more narrow as Calvinism became more refined. Theory was built upon theory and PSA moved further and further away from Scripture.

Both Calvin and Luther being schooled in Law, would bring that mindset to their theology.

Both regarded the writings of Paul through that prism of justice and infustice.

However, theology particularly of the events of the cross cannot be constricted by legal thinking.

This ,IMO, is a difficulty the typical theological framework constructs. That it is built using the existing parameters and understanding of the theologian.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1130 Pacific/1830 GMT.