Penal Substitution Reprised

[agedman]

From the very beginning, an innocent was slain to provide covering, and Jesus as lamb of God would provide the ultimate sacrifice for sins, as His shed blood provided the covering for the Grace of God. Was it His sinless life, or the nature of His death that brought salvation to us?

Both. As 1 Peter 1 would show.

"18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.​

For the innocent to be slain was held - penned up as signifying "on trial" - to prove no discredit could be attached.

Thus our Lord was examined, for the authorities could bring nothing from which to find Him guilty (though they inspected more thoroughly than any sacrifice) and had to be content with bribery and manipulation.

So purity was most certainly a point. Our Lord was pure, without spot, unblemished by the world. (One reason I don't hold that He ingested intoxicants - which is another thread issue).

Also, the nature of His death was a factor. He had to die. The blood had to be shed. He had to endure all that the type and the statements of the OT concerning the suffering messiah would appoint.

The shed blood provides for the forgiveness of sin. (Hebrews)

There is another Scripture that may help in discerning this matter. Typically, this passage is used to support justification by faith (belief), but there is also this subtle thread dealing with sin.

It is found in Romans 3:

21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
​

What is important of this passage to the topic is not only the lack of wrath, but how it was God doing the displaying.

Before, as you remember, all atonement concerning the "mercy seat" took place behind that great, mighty, ceiling to floor, wall to wall, curtain - symbol of the law separating God from man.

But God put His Son on public display. Rending the curtain in half, destroying that mighty wall of law separating Him from us. How? Look again at verse 25: "In His blood."

That blood was shed for ALL, without the wrath of God being displayed.

That blood was shed for ALL, that SOME might be adopted by the Father.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is far more accurate (imo).

This is what part the OT sacrificial system was based upon, that the aspect of penalty.

But, again, there was no "wrath" involved or associated in the remuneration of that penalty

A judgment is already made upon the unbeliever - guilty, wages paid = death, condemned to eternal Lake of Fire - second death.

A judgment is already made upon the believer - "2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." (Romans 8)

Except that there is divine wrath against sin, correct?

 

[agedman]

Except that there is divine wrath against sin, correct?

One must be careful not to assume what God "must" when it comes to God's character, and as a for instance the psalmist states:

38But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity and did not destroy them;
And often He restrained His anger
And did not arouse all His wrath.
​

When it comes to Christ on the Cross, there is no Scripture indication that God was even inclined to wrath, much less that His wrath was poured out upon His Son.

When God confronted Adam, was He filled with wrath, or did they have a conversation concerning what took place?

When Satan appeared before God in Job, was God filled with wrath, or did they have a conversation concerning what Satan had been doing?

When Satan tempted Christ, was Christ filled with wrath, or did they have a conversation about terms and barter?

Strange as it may be, sin does not automatically oblige wrath from God.

 

[Van]

Hey Van,
Scripture tells us that the Law testifies to our sin. Adam transgressed the Law. Moses transgressed the Law. But those between Adam and Moses, while not being transgressors of the Law by sinning like Adam still sinned. And they still died.
What I am suggesting is that Christ delivered us from the bondage of sin and death because He is the Righteousness to which the Law testified. He is the fulfillment, taking away the negative implications for those who are "in Him".
And I like my baloney thick, with mayo. If fried I like it burnt on the outside. I'm getting hungry.

Adam sinned before the Law was given, so you are skating on thin ice.

PSA/PST - Penal Substitution Atonement/Theory - has no basis in scripture. Christ died for all mankind, paying the ransom necessary to redeem anyone transferred into Christ. So simple and straightforward, so why make it into a jumble?

The ransom paid (the blood of Christ) allows God to forgive and forget the sins of any person transferred into Christ. How do those unsaved pay that debt? (1) They remain separated from God forever, and (2) they are punished for their sins in the afterlife. But when God transfers an individual into Christ, (1) they undergo the circumcision of Christ which removes their debt, no matter how incurred, and (2) they are united with Christ, made alive, born anew, and arise in Christ a new creation. Then having been made firm in Christ, they are indwelt with the Holy Spirit forever.

 

[Van]

Then it is YOU who are in denial of the truth. You don't even put in the effort to actually discover and uncover what is the truth.
You are as one of the many in the stadium watching from the stands, boisterously blustering bias.
Spouting off on the efforts of others without being in the game itself, and knowing little about the game.
You have nothing of substance to offer from the stands other then biased opinions.
Perhaps you should actually get down from your heights, look at the play book, and actually contribute what is truly factual.

Folks, note the topic, Van's inappropriate behavior. And note, I am charged with not addressing the topic. That is par for the course. See post # 164, and note how different my posts are from those intent on obfuscation.

 

[agedman]

Adam sinned before the Law was given, so you are skating on thin ice.

Nope, there was one law. Don't eat of those two trees.

So the Law was present in the Garden.

PSA/PST - Penal Substitution Atonement/Theory - has no basis in scripture. Christ died for all mankind, paying the ransom necessary to redeem anyone transferred into Christ. So simple and straightforward, so why make it into a jumble?

Well, isn't that is the cause for the thread?

Isn't it proper to actually discuss the issues of PST?

But according to you, you proclaim "no basis in Scripture" - end of discussion.

The ransom paid (the blood of Christ) allows God to forgive and forget the sins of any person transferred into Christ. How do those unsaved pay that debt? (1) They remain separated from God forever, and (2) they are punished for their sins in the afterlife. But when God transfers an individual into Christ, (1) they undergo the circumcision of Christ which removes their debt, no matter how incurred, and (2) they are united with Christ, made alive, born anew, and arise in Christ a new creation. Then having been made firm in Christ, they are indwelt with the Holy Spirit forever.

So, you agree with the Ransom Theory?

Why don't you take that theory and draw some distinctions and contrast the two?

 

[agedman]

Folks, note the topic, Van's inappropriate behavior. And note, I am charged with not addressing the topic. That is par for the course. See post # 164, and note how different my posts are from those intent on obfuscation.

Yep, you are so "addressing the topic." NOT!

Look at this response to the topic.

More denial of the obvious, I showed your first premise was false and unbiblical, I did not waste my time on the other two.

So your own words, again, are shown as proof that you are the one "intent on obfuscation."

You made how many posts before you can point to the one that you actually "address the topic?"

But you don't read to gain any wisdom or understanding, you just read the "first premise" (which was taken from Scriptures) and make wrong judgment.

Go back to that post, lift it, put it into the thread and and actually deal with the facts presented.

Bet you can't.

 

[JonC]

Adam sinned before the Law was given, so you are skating on thin ice.

PSA/PST - Penal Substitution Atonement/Theory - has no basis in scripture. Christ died for all mankind, paying the ransom necessary to redeem anyone transferred into Christ. So simple and straightforward, so why make it into a jumble?

The ransom paid (the blood of Christ) allows God to forgive and forget the sins of any person transferred into Christ. How do those unsaved pay that debt? (1) They remain separated from God forever, and (2) they are punished for their sins in the afterlife. But when God transfers an individual into Christ, (1) they undergo the circumcision of Christ which removes their debt, no matter how incurred, and (2) they are united with Christ, made alive, born anew, and arise in Christ a new creation. Then having been made firm in Christ, they are indwelt with the Holy Spirit forever.

Not at all. Adam was given a law which he transgressed. Those between Adam and Moses (and Gentiles) were not under such a law yet they still sinned. This was the point Paul made.

The unsaved are condemned. They cannot "repay the debt". And this is the condemnation - that they have rejected the Light.

 

[Van]

Not at all. Adam was given a law which he transgressed. Those between Adam and Moses (and Gentiles) were not under such a law yet they still sinned. This was the point Paul made.

The unsaved are condemned. They cannot "repay the debt". And this is the condemnation - that they have rejected the Light.

Paul teaches those before Moses were not under the Law, but nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses.
1) No verse says or suggests Adam was given a Law. (Ice breaking underfoot)
2) Yes, the wages of sin (death) reigned from Adam to Moses without the Law. (You are plunging into very cold water)
3) The lost will pay the penalty for sin, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (You need someone to take your hand and pull you up.)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On Scripture itself. It is not "it is written" but "it is written again". Scripture interprets Scripture. We can do "word studies" (if that is what you call what you are doing) and justify almost any doctrine.

This is just a stonewall. You do not engage with the post; you do not point out where you think my error is; you simply blank it, because you know I'm right and 'forsake' means exactly that-- 'forsake.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, Martin.

Just as all words, "enkataleipo" may actually mean walk away and never see again.

That would be the wrong sense because God obviously did not never see Christ again. Do you really think that is what I'm arguing for???

HOWEVER, throughout the Scriptures, the word is most often used in the sense of leaving along, or leave helpless, of leaving one unsustainable.

For ease of readers, here is what "Bible hub" shows for Strongs: left in a condition of lack ("without"); hence, to feel forsaken (helpless), like left in dire circumstances. (Strong's Greek: 1459. ἐγκαταλείπω (egkataleipó) -- to leave behind, i.e. (in a good sense) let remain over or (in a bad sense) desert)

Again, that does not mean that both the Hebrew and the Greek cannot carry the term to mean "discard," rather, it just is NOT the most typically considered accurate (imo).

Well here are the nine occasions where enkataleipo is used in the NT:
Matthew 27:46
Mark 15:34
Acts 22:27
Romans 9:29
2 Corinthians 4:9
2 Timothy 4:10
2 Timothy 4:16
Hebrews 10:25
Hebrews 13:5

Romans 9:29 might perhaps have a 'good sense' but it's not a sense that fits the Matthew and Mark verses.

As with nearly every case, the word definitions must fit into what is presented.

There is not (imo) a place to be found in which the Scriptures showing events related to the crucifixion (Numbers, Leviticus, Isaiah, Gospels, Revelations...) that place the events as even being a hint that the violence was the "wrath of God," or that God discarded or even disregarded His Son.

Isaiah 53:4; Zechariah 13:7.

Such thinking is just not found in Scriptures.

Just the opposite are evidenced.

There are indications that pleasure, rejoicing, honour, glory, are what was actually taking place.

I do not believe that while our Lord was hanging on the cross there was any pleasure or rejoicing. Even the sun was darkened.

 

[JonC]

This is just a stonewall. You do not engage with the post; you do not point out where you think my error is; you simply blank it, because you know I'm right and 'forsake' means exactly that-- 'forsake.'

I believe your error is the contextual framework through which you view the Cross. This is the undercurrent that flows throughout your theology, pulling it from its intended course.

I agree that forsake means forsake. God forsook Christ to suffer the Cross - it was His will that Christ suffer and die - rather than delivering from he was delievered through. Does this mean God abandoned Christ? No.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe your error is the contextual framework through which you view the Cross. This is the undercurrent that flows throughout your theology, pulling it from its intended course.

What does this mean? Quote my posts and show me my errors.

I agree that forsake means forsake. God forsook Christ to suffer the Cross - it was His will that Christ suffer and die - rather than delivering from he was delievered through. Does this mean God abandoned Christ? No.

Why did God forsake Christ? What was the purpose of it? And what do you believe is the difference between 'forsake' and 'abandon'?

 

[JonC]

What does this mean? Quote my posts and show me my errors.

Why did God forsake Christ? What was the purpose of it? And what do you believe is the difference between 'forsake' and 'abandon'?

Your error is in the context you bring into Scripture. After all that has been offered you don't understand?

Perhaps instead of blowing smoke by falsely stating I am influenced by N.T. Wright (who holds PSA in the historical context of Israel and Rome) you should have paid more attention to what others have been saying.

God stayed his deliverance for a time, while Christ suffered and died, because this was His plan. Peter (as recorded by Luke) tells us it was God's will that His Christ suffer and die at the hands of godless men. But God raised Him on the 3rd day.

 

[JonC]

Paul teaches those before Moses were not under the Law, but nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses.
1) No verse says or suggests Adam was given a Law. (Ice breaking underfoot)
2) Yes, the wages of sin (death) reigned from Adam to Moses without the Law. (You are plunging into very cold water)
3) The lost will pay the penalty for sin, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (You need someone to take your hand and pull you up.)

1. Paul suggests exactly that (Adam broke a direct command just as those under the Law....i.e., those not under the Law sinned but their sin was not like Adam's transgression (you just fell through the ice).
2. The wages of sin is death. (You are struggling towards the break).
3. With flaming fire he will mete out punishment on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will undergo the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength, when he comes to be glorified among his saints and admired on that day among all who have believed — and you did in fact believe our testimony.

The lost will not pay the debt but collect the wages of sin, pay the penalty. The Calvinistic understanding of this sin debt is flawed. (Oops....You Just went under).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1 AM Pacific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your error is in the context you bring into Scripture. After all that has been offered you don't understand?

Nope! Produce some evidence or admit that you're 'blowing smoke.'

Perhaps instead of blowing smoke by falsely stating I am influenced by N.T. Wright (who holds PSA in the historical context of Israel and Rome) you should have paid more attention to what others have been saying.

If I worried about what others say when they produce no evidence, I would be in a pretty bad way. I will look to find some places where your posts echo Wright's, but now you know how unpleasant it is when people say things about your beliefs.

God stayed his deliverance for a time, while Christ suffered and died, because this was His plan. Peter (as recorded by Luke) tells us it was God's will that His Christ suffer and die at the hands of godless men. But God raised Him on the 3rd day.

Why did God stay His deliverance? Why was it His will? If Christ was the beloved Son, why didn't He rescue Him immediately?

 

[JonC]

Nope! Produce some evidence or admit that you're 'blowing smoke.'

If I worried about what others say when they produce no evidence, I would be in a pretty bad way. I will look to find some places where your posts echo Wright's, but now you know how unpleasant it is when people say things about your beliefs.

Why did God stay His deliverance? Why was it His will? If Christ was the beloved Son, why didn't He rescue Him immediately?

Because that was our redemption. Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Having died and being vindicated he conquered sin and death, freeing us from its bonds, being the last Adam, so that He would be the firstborn of many brethren.

 

[agedman]

Because time is short on this thread, I will try to give brief answers.

Nope! Produce some evidence or admit that you're 'blowing smoke.'

If I recall, this statement is made upon the thinking that "forsake" means "abandon."
The statement is found in Matthew and Mark, and points to Psalm 22 which gives a glimpse into the thoughts of our Lord on the Cross.

So to place context to the statements in Mark and Matthew one must look in the Psalm.

In the psalm it is evident that forsake does not mean abandon as one who would discard, but to remain silent, to withhold support.

God never abandoned His Son, but while undergoing all the events of the crucifixion from the last ministering of the angels, to the open door of the tomb, the Father withdrew the sustaining, the support from the Son.

There is no cause in Psalm 22 to consider God abandoning the Son as if He "turned His back" or "cannot look upon sin." Such is excess and not indicated.

If I worried about what others say when they produce no evidence, I would be in a pretty bad way. I will look to find some places where your posts echo Wright's, but now you know how unpleasant it is when people say things about your beliefs.

I have actually not read much from Wright. Don't care too, and that really applies to any author. I barely get through reading the necessary on the BB.

So, I don't know what Wright says, or anyone else on the matter.

Christ suffered, He died, and rose again. That is the gospel.

The blood, from the prayer in the garden, was sprinkled throughout the way.

Without that blood, there is no forgiveness for any man.

John 3 states that God gave the Son to all men.
Paul and John state that the blood was for all men.

I do not doubt that it was also for the elect if it was for all men.

Why did God stay His deliverance?

Because it PLEASED the Father to withhold support that humankind do their worse. (Isaiah 53)

To show to all humankind that they could not destroy Christ, but that He gave Himself over to death. (Recall the statement of the Centurion who was amazed Christ so quickly dead?)

All heaven rejoiced upon seeing the lamb slain (Revelations 5).

Why was it His will?

Because that is what the Father chose. Could the Sovereign have chosen some other way? Certainly, but this is what He chose.

Just as "it is appointed for man to die, once" so it was appointed for Christ.

If Christ was the beloved Son, why didn't He rescue Him immediately?

Because that was not what God had planned.

The OT is filled with both type and statements concerning the ministry and crucifixion. It is also filled with statements concerning the future.

Christ knew the will of the Father. He took on the form of man to do the will of the Father.

It was no secret, no unintended, and no unattended matter, this crucifixion.

God gave to our Lord personal attention in the garden.

When He had accomplished all necessary of the crucifixion, He is seen before the throne taking the scrolls with all heaven rejoicing and bowing.

It was all and is all well planned by the Father.

Nothing is left unplanned, not even the appointed time of death.

 

[JonC]

If I worried about what others say when they produce no evidence, I would be in a pretty bad way. I will look to find some places where your posts echo Wright's, but now you know how unpleasant it is when people say things about your beliefs.

I don’t worry about what you say and cannot evidence. I know you believe in a system that hinges upon presupposition (as I told you, I held your view for decades).

Insofar as Wright, that’s a fool’s errand that will only diminish your character and earn you warning points for false accusations. John Piper noted the contribution and scholarship of Wright, so I would hope that (as with Piper) we share some similarities. I told you where I think we may differ (Wright and I) but that was only from a quick glance online at his doctrine. I do not know how he views the Atonement and have even told you where I got my view and noted influences on my thinking. All excluded N.T. Wright, not because I reject what he has said but because I am not versed enough in his works to have an opinion, much less be influenced by them. That said, I know he has written on Justification (at length). Has he written on the Atonement itself (on theories of the Atonement)? Since he is so influential with you and Y1, I would like to read what he has to say.

Your problem here is that you are blowing smoke. You cannot justify your position through Scripture so you look at what I have said about my view - a view most Christians have held and most Christians hold today - and deal falsely with me. I hope that N.T. Wright does hold this view. But the reason most of us (most Christians) hold or have held this view has nothing to do with Wright. The reason so many are abandoning PSA has to do with its foundation rather than any contemporary author.

Your actions have spoken poorly about your character. Period. There is no excuse. Even if you thought I was doing the same by pointing out what is tradition from the Reformation that would not justify your lack of integrity here. Even if I agreed with Wright that would not justify your lack of integrity here. You can't justify bearing false witness. It is wrong. Period. It is this type of subjectivity in what should be objective that I am arguing against.