A Biblical Based view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[Van]

Hi Martin, Icon did not seem to have any points, other than perhaps to claim those "called out of darkness" reading Peter's letter, were under the Old Covenant. Sorry, but I will pass.

The passage precludes human from being chosen before they live not as a people. You did not address this reality. You seem to say they were chosen individually before creation, yet we not a people. Sorry, but I will pass.

People are justified when they are chosen individually based on their faith being credited as righteousness, and transferred into Christ where their sin burden is removed.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hi Martin, Icon did not seem to have any points, other than perhaps to claim those "called out of darkness" reading Peter's letter, were under the Old Covenant. Sorry, but I will pass.

The passage precludes human from being chosen before they live not as a people. You did not address this reality. You seem to say they were chosen individually before creation, yet we not a people. Sorry, but I will pass.

People are justified when they are chosen individually based on their faith being credited as righteousness, and transferred into Christ where their sin burden is removed.

Your not understanding gentile inclusion and the wording of the passages does not mean I am wrong.
Your denial of the timing of Gods electing work in eternity past does not change that fact either
The biblical God does not credit man as having faith in and of himself as you repeat over and over.
Saving faith is part of the salvation gift to the elect when they are quickened eph2

 

[MB]

Your not understanding gentile inclusion and the wording of the passages does not mean I am wrong.
Your denial of the timing of Gods electing work in eternity past does not change that fact either
The biblical God does not credit man as having faith in and of himself as you repeat over and over.
Saving faith is part of the salvation gift to the elect when they are quickened eph2

You still have not shown scripture that actually supports your view. Your objections to opposing views are unsubstantiated.
MB

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hi Martin, Icon did not seem to have any points, other than perhaps to claim those "called out of darkness" reading Peter's letter, were under the Old Covenant. Sorry, but I will pass.

Now you are indulging in exactly what you accused Iconoclast of doing, preferring ad homs to dealing with the text.

The passage precludes human from being chosen before they live not as a people. You did not address this reality. You seem to say they were chosen individually before creation, yet we not a people. Sorry, but I will pass.

I pointed out to you how people can be chosen for mercy before they receive mercy. Indeed, that would seem to be inevitable.

People are justified when they are chosen individually based on their faith being credited as righteousness, and transferred into Christ where their sin burden is removed.

No. People are justified when they repent and trust in Christ for salvation. However, 'Whom He foreknew [loved with an everlasting love], He predestined [in eternity]........ Whom He predestined, these He also called [effectually, in time]: whom He called, these He also justified [when they repented and trusted in Christ]........' (Romans 8:29-30).

 

[Van]

I see the time travel theology has arisen once again. We were not a chosen people, but somehow we had been chosen, and we lived without mercy, but had really already received mercy. Got it.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

This passage precludes individual election before creation. How were we once not a people if we had been chosen before creation? Note it does not say we were always chosen but did not know it. That is simply a rewrite to nullify the truth of scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

Justification is not about crediting righteousness for "faith"! that is completely and totally false! Faith merely embraces the TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL and that is why we are justified by faith due to the object of faith and only that object alone.

 

[JonC]

The title of this thread is correct. The necessity to base Penal Substitution Theory on Scripture exists because it is not derived from Scripture. If one has to hold an unbiblical view the least one can do is base it in Scripture. Well done.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Justification is not about crediting righteousness for "faith"!

Kinda hard to credit someone when they're flat broke. That was what we were in Adam, bankrupt. The debt sin demands we were unable to pay, being flat broke. But God...

 

[SovereignGrace]

Justification is not about crediting righteousness for "faith"!

I am being serious when I say this. If we were financially broke the same way we were spiritually broke, if we went to the bank to get a loan, they would laugh in our faces up until they had security escort us out.

We had no faith to exercise in our fallen state. We were already condemned[John 3:18], devoid of faith, being under God's condemnation. That is why ppl need see that the very moment we, or anyone, has faith, we our justified, and no longer under condemnation.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am being serious when I say this. If we were financially broke the same way we were spiritually broke, if we went to the bank to get a loan, they would laugh in our faces up until they had security escort us out.

We had no faith to exercise in our fallen state. We were already condemned[John 3:18], devoid of faith, being under God's condemnation. That is why ppl need see that the very moment we, or anyone, has faith, we our justified, and no longer under condemnation.

I assume you mean "has faith" in the truth of the gospel because generic faith justifies no one, saves no one anymore than a false profession of faith does. let me quote a page from my book on this subject and see what you think:

"Much of modern evangelism functions on the assumption that all human beings have inherent ability to come to Christ by faith. They claim all humans have faith and they use it every day. They exercise faith when they sit down on a chair believing it will hold their weight. They exercise faith in friends and family to do what they promise. They exercise faith in government to protect their rights. They exercise faith in many of the things they do every day. Therefore, they assume they are also equally capable of coming to Christ by faith. They argue, why else preach the gospel unless it is assumed that man has ability to respond to it? These are persuasive arguments. However, natural faith is only possible where there is willingness to exercise faith in such things. It is equally true that people choose not to exercise faith in many things every day. Many do not choose to place their trust in government, politicians or in certain other people and things simply because they are not willing to do so. Willingness is always determined by how a person thinks or how a person feels toward a certain person or thing. If we don’t like someone or something, or have reason to be suspicious of someone or something, we will never be inclined to place our trust in that something or someone until our mind and/or feelings are positively disposed toward that someone or something. Therefore, inability to trust is due to the inward disposition of thought and feelings toward someone or something. The position of natural faith assumes that nothing affects the natural inclination of fallen men toward God, and therefore fallen man has no dispositional problems with God which would prevent willing trust in the gospel or God. However, if the fallen nature is 5 naturally disposed against God, then that would prevent willingness to trust or submit to either God or the gospel. There is sufficient Biblical evidence to demonstrate that the heart of fallen man is naturally disposed against God (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). The emotional (Jn. 3:19-20) and intellectual (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14) dispositions of fallen man are in opposition to God, so that he will not come to Christ by faith (Jn. 6:40). Indeed, the Scriptures demand that this internal opposition to God is irreversible by man but can only be changed by a supernatural work of God. This must be the case with all fallen men or why else would Christ say, “No man can come to me” (Jn. 6:44)? Christ did not say “some” men cannot come to me, but “no man” can. That is at minimal, an assertion of universal unwillingness to come to Christ. It is this unwillingness that is the root of man’s inability to come to Christ. He said no man “can.” The Greek term translated “can” is dunamis or the common Greek term translated “power” or ability. Jesus is saying in the clearest possible language that “no man IS ABLE to come to me.” If that were not true, then why would the exception clause immediately follow - “except the Father draw him”? This exception clause demands that only a supernatural work of God can change that natural inability to come to Christ by faith. Therefore, this proves that natural faith is not sufficient for men to come to Christ or else there would be no exception clause at all. Furthermore, in response to, why preach the gospel if men were not inherently able to come to Christ by faith, it may be equally argued that the gospel may be the chosen means (2 Thes. 2:13) through which God may choose to empower (1 Thes. 1:4-5) to change that inward disposition against God to a willingness to 6 come to Christ by faith and that is why we are to preach the gospel. Therefore, God hath “chosen” the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe! And who are they? As the following pageswill demonstrate it is only those who have first been given by the Father to come to the Son in faith."

 

[The Biblicist]

There can be no question, no doubt whatsoever that John the Baptist identified Christ with the levitical sacrificial lamb (Jn. 1:29) with regard to his mission to deal with sin.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. - Jn. 1:29

Therefore, it cannot be disputed successfully that the Levitical sacrifice was typical of Christ's death "for the sin of the world."

The substitutionary basis of the sacrificial lamb's death is repeatedly said to be "for our sins" as the sacrificial lamb had to be "without spot or blemish" which is a type of sinlessness just as the lamb is a type of Christ and therefore the death of the lamb could not be for his own sins. Hence, the substitutionary element of the atonement is clearly demonstrated by scripture.

Nor can it be gainsaid that "death" is the penalty (thus PENAL condemnation) for violating the law of God (Gen. 2:17; Rom.5:12-19; 1 Jn. 3:6) and since Christ had no sins of his own then on the cross he is the LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE for those who do have sins and therefore the PENALTY of the law is being satisfied in his own death as there is no other cause for his death apart from satisfaction of God's PENAL consequences for violation of his law.

I make no claim that Jesus suffered death due to his own sins nor do I make any claim that God's penal consequences against sins which necessitated the death of Christ as the representative head for his people was directed toward Christ in any kind of PERSONAL manner but only as the LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE for his people who were born into this world by nature as "children OF WRATH" (Eph. 2:3) and thus God's penal wrath against sin was satisfied in the death of Christ as a LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE PERSON for those who are children "of wrath."

I believe any rejection of either the "substitutionary" or "penal" aspect of the atonement is complete and absolute heresy to the worst extent in so much it is a repudiation of the "truth" of the gospel.

We need to get back on track and address the OP.

The sacrificial lamb type is a type established not only under the Law but directly addressing the penalty of the law against sin and sinners. The lamb had no personal sin to bear or to be penalized by death. Only in its typology is the truth seen. John the Baptist makes it abundantly clear this was a type of Christ in his role of substitutionary atonement (Jn. 1:29) with regard to the PENALTY of the law against sin and sinners. Therefore, the type had to be "without spot or blemish" because the anti-type was without sin, knew no sin and did no sin and neither was sin found in him. This was the demand of THE LAW of God for a lamb to be an acceptable substitute for the wrath of God for violating his Law to be satisfied. The brazen altar and the fire that consumed the lamb typifies God's wrath directed. This symbol of God's wrath directed towar the symbol of God's Son was not due to any personal merit for God's wrath toward His Son, nor the Lamb in its type role (substitute for sinners) but his wrath (death) was directed toward the Lamb because of the LEGAL POSITION of the lamb. It is a LEGAL POSITION because it is the Law of God that established that position for substitutionary atonement.

This LEGAL POSITION of substitutionary atonement is established clearly by two acts by the High Priest toward the sacrifice of the goat on the day of atonement. First, he laid his hands upon the head of the goat and confessed the sins of the people (not the sins of the goat) and then designated this act as atonement "for the sins" of the people. The same can be said with regard to the sacrificial lamb:

Le 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

There is confession of his sin ("his sin that he hath committed"). There can be no question that the lamb served as a SUBSTITUTE for the sinner and that his death upon the brazen altar and fire represented the wrath of God against sin. Hence, the type under the Law is a clear picture of penal substitutionary atonement which John the Baptist claimed was fulfilled in Christ as the antitype (Jn. 1:29).

 

[The Biblicist]

The title of this thread is correct. The necessity to base Penal Substitution Theory on Scripture exists because it is not derived from Scripture. If one has to hold an unbiblical view the least one can do is base it in Scripture. Well done.

The sacrificial lamb is a type established by the Law in order to picture the satisfacton of the LEGAL demands by God against sinners and sin. The sacrifice could not be offered in just any manner but upon a brazen altar with fire which symbolized the wrath of God being administered to the sacrifice. The chosen sacrifice had to meet LEGAL qualifications set forth by the Law of God and served in a LEGAL POSITION which was typical of a substitutionary penal atonement. It is a LEGAL position because the Law of God established the role it served with regard to sin and sinners.

On the day of atonement this LEGAL substitionary POSITION or ROLE is clearly established as the High Priest would confess the sins of the people (not of the animal) while laying his hands on the head of the sacrifice putting the animal to death upon the brazen altar of fire. Everything was performed by LEGAL DEMANDS established by God's Law in order to satisfy God's law against sin found in the people for which the sacrifice typically represented.

What is true of the goat on the day of atonement is true of the lamb offered upon the same brazen altar of fire:

Le 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

There is confession of his sin ("his sin that he hath committed"). There can be no question that the lamb served as a SUBSTITUTE for the sinner and that his death upon the brazen altar and fire represented the wrath of God against sin. Hence, the type under the Law is a clear picture of penal substitutionary atonement which John the Baptist claimed was fulfilled in Christ as the antitype (Jn. 1:29).

The typology presents a clear picture of penal substitutionary atonement. The animal was selected based on qualifications that typically demanded a sinless condition ("without spot or blemish") and it was put to death upon an altar of fire made of brass which is a symbol of God's wrath not for the sin found in the sacrifice but for the sin found in the people for which the sacrifice was a substionary type suffering the penalty due the people it represented. Hence, God's wrath is poured out on His Son as the LEGAL SUBSTITUTE for God's people not because of any sin found in His Son but for sin found in his people in which LEGAL POSITION the Son took upon himself on the cross as the antitype of God's brass altar of fire.

Penal Substitionary atonement is "based on" God's Word meaning it is the clear teaching of God's Word!

 

[SovereignGrace]

I assume you mean "has faith" in the truth of the gospel because generic faith justifies no one, saves no one anymore than a false profession of faith does.

Yes.

let me quote a page from my book on this subject and see what you think:

"Much of modern evangelism functions on the assumption that all human beings have inherent ability to come to Christ by faith. They claim all humans have faith and they use it every day. They exercise faith when they sit down on a chair believing it will hold their weight. They exercise faith in friends and family to do what they promise. They exercise faith in government to protect their rights. They exercise faith in many of the things they do every day. Therefore, they assume they are also equally capable of coming to Christ by faith. They argue, why else preach the gospel unless it is assumed that man has ability to respond to it? These are persuasive arguments. However, natural faith is only possible where there is willingness to exercise faith in such things. It is equally true that people choose not to exercise faith in many things every day. Many do not choose to place their trust in government, politicians or in certain other people and things simply because they are not willing to do so. Willingness is always determined by how a person thinks or how a person feels toward a certain person or thing. If we don’t like someone or something, or have reason to be suspicious of someone or something, we will never be inclined to place our trust in that something or someone until our mind and/or feelings are positively disposed toward that someone or something. Therefore, inability to trust is due to the inward disposition of thought and feelings toward someone or something. The position of natural faith assumes that nothing affects the natural inclination of fallen men toward God, and therefore fallen man has no dispositional problems with God which would prevent willing trust in the gospel or God. However, if the fallen nature is 5 naturally disposed against God, then that would prevent willingness to trust or submit to either God or the gospel. There is sufficient Biblical evidence to demonstrate that the heart of fallen man is naturally disposed against God (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). The emotional (Jn. 3:19-20) and intellectual (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14) dispositions of fallen man are in opposition to God, so that he will not come to Christ by faith (Jn. 6:40). Indeed, the Scriptures demand that this internal opposition to God is irreversible by man but can only be changed by a supernatural work of God. This must be the case with all fallen men or why else would Christ say, “No man can come to me” (Jn. 6:44)? Christ did not say “some” men cannot come to me, but “no man” can. That is at minimal, an assertion of universal unwillingness to come to Christ. It is this unwillingness that is the root of man’s inability to come to Christ. He said no man “can.” The Greek term translated “can” is dunamis or the common Greek term translated “power” or ability. Jesus is saying in the clearest possible language that “no man IS ABLE to come to me.” If that were not true, then why would the exception clause immediately follow - “except the Father draw him”? This exception clause demands that only a supernatural work of God can change that natural inability to come to Christ by faith. Therefore, this proves that natural faith is not sufficient for men to come to Christ or else there would be no exception clause at all. Furthermore, in response to, why preach the gospel if men were not inherently able to come to Christ by faith, it may be equally argued that the gospel may be the chosen means (2 Thes. 2:13) through which God may choose to empower (1 Thes. 1:4-5) to change that inward disposition against God to a willingness to 6 come to Christ by faith and that is why we are to preach the gospel. Therefore, God hath “chosen” the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe! And who are they? As the following pageswill demonstrate it is only those who have first been given by the Father to come to the Son in faith."

Wonderfully stated.

 

[JonC]

The sacrificial lamb is a type established by the Law in order to picture the satisfacton of the LEGAL demands by God against sinners and sin. The sacrifice could not be offered in just any manner but upon a brazen altar with fire which symbolized the wrath of God being administered to the sacrifice. The chosen sacrifice had to meet LEGAL qualifications set forth by the Law of God and served in a LEGAL POSITION which was typical of a substitutionary penal atonement. It is a LEGAL position because the Law of God established the role it served with regard to sin and sinners.

On the day of atonement this LEGAL substitionary POSITION or ROLE is clearly established as the High Priest would confess the sins of the people (not of the animal) while laying his hands on the head of the sacrifice putting the animal to death upon the brazen altar of fire. Everything was performed by LEGAL DEMANDS established by God's Law in order to satisfy God's law against sin found in the people for which the sacrifice typically represented.

What is true of the goat on the day of atonement is true of the lamb offered upon the same brazen altar of fire:

Le 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

There is confession of his sin ("his sin that he hath committed"). There can be no question that the lamb served as a SUBSTITUTE for the sinner and that his death upon the brazen altar and fire represented the wrath of God against sin. Hence, the type under the Law is a clear picture of penal substitutionary atonement which John the Baptist claimed was fulfilled in Christ as the antitype (Jn. 1:29).

The typology presents a clear picture of penal substitutionary atonement. The animal was selected based on qualifications that typically demanded a sinless condition ("without spot or blemish") and it was put to death upon an altar of fire made of brass which is a symbol of God's wrath not for the sin found in the sacrifice but for the sin found in the people for which the sacrifice was a substionary type suffering the penalty due the people it represented. Hence, God's wrath is poured out on His Son as the LEGAL SUBSTITUTE for God's people not because of any sin found in His Son but for sin found in his people in which LEGAL POSITION the Son took upon himself on the cross as the antitype of God's brass altar of fire.

Penal Substitionary atonement is "based on" God's Word meaning it is the clear teaching of God's Word!

I'm not interested. I was posting tongue in cherk. I thought you got it by your rating.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not interested. I was posting tongue in cherk. I thought you got it by your rating.

What is a "cherk"?

 

[JonC]

What is a "cherk"?

Apparently it is the cheek of an android phone.

 

[SovereignGrace]

What is a "cherk"?

A jerk with a checkbook?

#dunno

 

[Van]

Justification is not about crediting righteousness for "faith"! that is completely and totally false! Faith merely embraces the TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL and that is why we are justified by faith due to the object of faith and only that object alone.

Are we justified by our faith in Christ or by the blood of the Lamb? How is our sin burden (what God holds against us) removed such that we are justified (just as if we had not sinned)?

"People are justified when they are chosen individually based on their faith being credited as righteousness, and transferred into Christ where their sin burden is removed."

Ever wonder why so many posts address mischaracterizations.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

This passage precludes individual election before creation. How were we once not a people if we had been chosen before creation? Note it does not say we were always chosen but did not know it. That is simply a rewrite to nullify the truth of scripture.

In summary, Christ did not die for individuals chosen before creation (the PSA assertion) because no one was chosen individually before creation as demonstrated by 1 Peter 2:9-10.

 

[Yeshua1]

Psalms supports my view and conflicts with your view, and it is right out in the open.
You posted "no one is transferred" before and I cited the verse that says we are transferred. Just repeating falsehoods is obfuscation and not discussion.
Corporately we were "chosen in Him" before creation, but individually we are chosen during our lifetime, after we were not a chosen people, after we had not yet received mercy. Your view as has been shown many times, is unbiblical.

In summary, Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross provides the price of redemption for everyone transferred into Christ, thus Christ died for all mankind, although only those put into Christ receive that reconciliation, when the penalty for their individual sins is removed by the circumcision of Christ.

Col 1:13 - For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

God is the One who chose us in Christ, before salvation, not based upon us getting saved!

 

[Van]

Repeating false assertions that are precluded by scripture is without merit.

God chose us through faith in the truth, therefore He did not choose us individually before creation. 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Therefore Christ died for all mankind, the whole world. 1 John 2:2

In summary, Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross provides the price of redemption for everyone transferred into Christ, thus Christ died for all mankind, although only those put into Christ receive that reconciliation, when the penalty for their individual sins is removed by the circumcision of Christ.