Featured Penal Substitution and the Trinity (again)

I understand how you see Penal Substitution Theory in those verses, but what you are seeing is an interpretation. Penal Substitution Theory is not in the text of Scripture.

This is what I get out of those three passages:

God demonstrated His love towards us in that while we were sinners Christ died for us. We have been justified by His blood and will be saved from the wrath of God through Him. We now have received the reconciliation.

When we were slaves of sin we were free in regard to righteousness. But now having been freed form sin and enslaved to God, wew derive our own benefit resulting in sanctification and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.

Christ bore our griefs and our sorrows He carried. We esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God and afflicted, but He was pierced through for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray, but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

 

I do not understand that they are different. But I'll try.

I believe that God showed His love towards mankind by offering His own Son as a sacrifice for us - to be born, live a life of obedience and suffering, and to die - for us at a time when we were sinners. It is through this that we are justified and have received reconciliation with God, and how we will escape the wrath to come. In the past we were slaves of sin but we were free in terms of righteousness, but now we are slaves to God and freed from sin in Christ Jesus because of His work. While man (spiritually blind/ dead men) esteemed Christ as stricken and smitten of God, and afflicted the opposite was true - for He was bearing our griefs and our sorrows, he was pierced for our sins and crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our benefit, our salvation, fell upon Christ and by this suffering we are healed.

What is your interpretation of the text?

 

I think the implications of eternal condemnation due to sin in the "wrath to come" (in those passages).

Jesus dying a sinners death I think is also implied (God laid our iniquities upon Him... And elsewhere He shared in our infirmity, it pleased God to crush Him).

 

No. Most other theories of the Atonement include the exact same idea.

I, for example, reject Penal Substitution Theory. But I believe that our guilt (our iniquity) fell onto Christ and He died for our sins.

I'd say the core of Penal Substitution Theory (what makes it differ from its predecessor) is its shift to justice and how it handles the concept of divine justice.

 

I do not understand your post. This is not about God's motives. It is about what is actually in Scripture and how different interpretations come about.

This is about what Scripture says God did and what the different theories say God did.

 

Members,

When it comes to basic beliefs we can all get defensive. So much stands on our understanding of the Atonement. Historically this has not been an easy topic.

Going forward any insults and ad hominem (on this thread) will be deleted or edited.

If you cannot honestly discuss the topic then please refrain from posting.

Off topic posts and ad honinem will be removed from view for administrative review in an attempt to allow discussion of this topic.

 

Where we stand is people view Scriptures differently.

Scripture is not the determining factor in these differences (something @37818 brought up - the difference is in the interpretation of Scripture).

So it does no good to say "this passage proves my theory" because it proves your theory only to those who interpret the passage the same as you. Those who disagree with you affirm the exact same Scripture but do not interpret it the same as you interpret.

What needs to be discussed is these differences in interpretation and the reasons each side interpret Scripture as they do.

This means asking rather than assuming.

 

I think I understand what you are saying.

You are claiming the idea Christ took our punishment instead of us is meaningless or of no consequence because both sides agree Christ suffered to redeem us.

I have never thought of it that way, and I am not sure the difference is that minimal. But I agree ultimately both sides of the issue are saved through the work of God.

I certainly could affirm a Penal Substitution Theory that rejected Christ took upon Himself the cup of God's wrath, that God punished Him instead of punishing us, that divine wrath had to be satisfied by Christ being punished for our sins. I also agree this ideas are no more valuable than how many angels can dance in the head of a pin.

But I am not sure that topics like Christ dying for us vs instead of us, or suffering God's wrath vs suffering the under the curse/ powers of darkness are that inconsequential. They may seem small at the start but they have serious implications in one's understanding.

Just a few thoughts anyway.

 

I agree that Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) does not present God as ceasing to love Christ (or even that God looked on His Son with hatred).

What we have to remember when dealing with PSA is that in the big picture it is picturing God as taking this wrath (this punishment) Himself. Sometimes it can be taken as the Father punishing the Son (or punishing our sin laid on the Son). But in the end it is saying that God takes our punishment Himself rather than inflicting it on us.

Arguments that associate PSA with "cosmic child abuse" are unfair and inaccurate (they are strawmen arguments).

Personally I hold a different position, Christius Victor, which is often diminished by those who disagree with my view as just Christ achieving victory (because of the name "Christus Victor"). So I have some experience with being unfairly weighed.

I believe it is fair to disagree with PSA (just as it is fair for people to disagree with my position). But we have to be very careful to let our disagreements be honest ones.