Featured Debt vs. Penal Substitution

BTW I am not straying from the subject but actually challenging the very historical basis you are basing this study upon. You are making and repeating the unsustainable claim that no other positions were known during this period, when in fact, honesty can only say the Roman Catholic monks selected and preserved no other views between the fourth and sixteenth centuries.

Stop making your absolute statement, and I will stop challenging it.

 

Yes, I accepted your apology. However, for the sake of clarity, what if you ten year old boy said to you, Yes I apologized but I am not saying I am wrong or promising I will do it again? Explain to us how you would respond to the nature of his apology? Would you call it an insincere apology at best? Reminds of the little boy told to sit down or else, and he sat down but then told his papa "My body may be sitting down, but I am standing up in my heart."

Reminds me of the Hillary Clinton e-mail violations. The Attorney General refused to prosecute her, not because she did not clearly break the law, but because he believed she did not have that INTENT in her heart. When she lied to the FBI he dismissed due to INTENT. It's now all about INTENT rather than actual offending actions or words.

Yes, sad to say.

 

Saying "there is no evidence" is quite different than saying nothing else existed.

 

If that needs explanation then there is no point in discussing this further.

 

Upon reading through 4 pages of the discussion I am compelled to remind readers of the following:

1) without the shed blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.

2) our Lord Jesus did not shed all his blood upon the cross.

Forensic science of Roman crucifixion shows that the method was meant to be torturous but not as bloody as one might expect. Rather, the method was meant to prolong the life of the tortured as much as possible that the suffering present to the populace some measure of meaningful restitution for wrongs perpetrated upon it by the one crucified. ​

3) there is a basic mistake when the work of shedding of blood is interchanged with the work of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

4) penal substitution theory is in fact a theory, not a doctrine.

No one argues that or Lord Jesus suffered meaningfully and with purpose under the leading of the Father.
What is not found in Scripture is that suffering was the extinguishing of God’s wrath. (John 6). Such is not found in OT type, prophecy, nor statements by the Apostles and Other writers of the NT. Rather such placement of wrath is the product of RCC teaching which compels them toward such things as last rites, penitence, purgatory ...​

Christ shed His blood.
Christ was crucified as common death deserving criminals were dispatched under Roman law for non-citizens. Roman citizen were not crucified but were quickly dispatched.
The tree was not new and the tomb borrowed.

What was happening in heaven at the very time of crucifixion?

Friends, it wasn’t wrath! It was victory! Revelation 5.

​

 

I have to agree.
If I understand this thread, and the question it poses, correctly:

I have heard, even from friends, that regarding Christ's death on the cross, that He took the believer's place.
I cannot find that idea or statement in all of Scripture.

If this is what is referred to as "Penal Substitution", would someone please show me, if it does indeed exist?
I'll need book, chapter and verse.



Otherwise, I see Christ's death and His blood as having paid our sin debt to God the Father ( Isaiah 53:4-12, Romans 8:3, 2 Corinthians 5:21 ) , and redeeming us from His wrath ( Romans 5:9, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 ).

With due regard to those who are of the other persuasion, "propitiation" means "appeasement", not "stand-in".
Jesus appeased the wrath of God for us, being made sin for us.
We could have never appeased God's wrath, therefore Jesus did not "stand-in" for us.

He did not take our punishment ( to suffer eternity in Hell forever )...
The Lord took our sins upon Himself and suffered the shame of dying on the tree; He did not die in our place on the cross.
To me, that is why the Father turned His back on Him while he was on the cross;
Because Christ became sin for us.
...and God hates sin.

Jesus was bruised for our iniquities, because He was made, in the eyes of God, our iniquity.
If He would have taken our punishment, then He would be in Hell right now.
He would have remained dead...and He didn't.
He would have never have stated that it was finished.

But for a perfect lamb, spotless and without blemish, the sacrifice for sins is once, for all.
Appeasement, my friends...not penal substitution.




I happen to think that "Penal Substitution" is a nice thought that may seem right, but it is not exactly according to Scripture.



Respectfully, this is all I will contribute to this thread.
I wish you all well.

 

As I said, I really don't think it's a good idea to take your theology from the medieval Church.
Both Abelard and Anselm were medieval Roman Catholics. I have quotations supporting Penal Substitution up until 'pope' Gregory around 600AD. After that sacramentalism seems to have set in, along with a flight from the Bible. I know very little about Abelard except that he committed fornication with a young lady less than half his age called Heloise. Anselm's book, Cur deus homo? is the first book that tries to delve in detail into the atonement, but as your quotation observes, it is based more on philosophy or 'scholastic theology' rather than the Bible.

Anselm's book does not support Penal Substitution, although it draws somewhat close. In a few words, he says that the Lord Jesus offered satisfaction to God for His outraged honour and majesty, affronted by human sin. The doctrine of Penal Substitution teaches that Christ on the cross gave satisfaction to God's justice. The Bible teaches very clearly that God cannot 'just forgive sin' as has been suggested on this thread. 'He who justifies the wicked, and He who condemns the just; both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD' (Proverbs 17:15; c.f. also Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1). Clearly God cannot be an abomination to Himself; He must punish sin, but in His amazing grace and mercy, He has given Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Anselm never got as far as that, and Abelard SFAIK came nowhere near it.

 

Gosh! For about the third time on this thread, '[Christ] Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Our sins; the sins of believers! How much clearer do you want it?

 

I was replying to Dave Gilbert, not you, [Nope].

 

I think that is as clear as it can get.

Try not to get frustrated with me, friend Martin...I was only typing it out for all to see, why I believe the way I do.
For those that don't, I was simply telling them why.

Peace to you, good sir.

 

Quoting a portion of a verse can miss the substance of an application.

For example: “God cannot look upon sin” is often used to justify the thinking that God “turned his back on Christ” which is impossible considering the trinity. This was actually the Jews rebuke the prophet’s statement concerning God using a heathen people to conquer them.

​

In part this is the case of your use of 1 Peter 2 which states in context:

21For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; 23and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.25For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.​

Leaving out the purpose of the suffering and the importance to the conduct of the believer places the quote out of balance with other verses that state that shed blood both the actual blood and the furniture was what brought forgiveness.

The “bearing our sins in His body” never violated the sanctity and sanctification of our Lord. He “committed no sin...”.