Penal Substitution and the Trinity (again)

[Yeshua1]

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.

Where is the due wrath of God for sins appeased and propitiated for in your view though?

 

[Yeshua1]

The Lord Jesus never ceased to be the beloved Son of the Father. God's wrath is against sin and those who commit it.. The Lord Jesus was made the sin-bearer (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24) and God's wrath against sin was spent upon Him (Isaiah 53:5).

I have yet to see Jon C or anyone else here not likening Pst show just how the wrath of God gets appeased and Propitiated apart from the Pst view!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Christ cannot be installed back to his former glorious position by the father unless he made atonement for sins of His own, and still fail to see how non pst accounts for that!

 

[Yeshua1]

I hear an understanding which you are saying is not what the text is saying. There is what a text says. And there is interpretations of the text. You have not separated the two for me.

He seems to not like the wrath part....

 

[JonC]

Do you refer to the bad theology of someone like NT Wright?

No, I do not refer to N.T. Wright.

The teachings of someone like NT Wright not found in the Bible, is he orthodox?

Yes, N.T. Wright is within orthodox Christianity.

He would not be orthodox in terms of Baptist doctrine, of course, but in terms of Christianity he is well within the orthodox position. He is Anglican. Most argue against his "New Perspective on Paul" which is neither new nor his. I agree with Reformed theologians (like Piper) who say he has contributed much to our understanding but have questionable doctrines. Not unorthodox, but ideas that are unproven.

The pst View of the atonement is the ONLY view that allows God to remain Holy and Just to forgive and justify lost sinners!

That is your opinion, but not mine. I do not know that merely stating our opinions or beliefs is helpful or edifying to anyone.

No, we see the Pst as being the heart of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the scriptures prove that position!

Scripture proves that position to you, that is why you hold it. Scripture proves it wrong to me, that is why I do not. Just making statements do not add to the dialogue. We need to discuss our differences and engage one another.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, I do not refer to N.T. Wright.

Yes, N.T. Wright is within orthodox Christianity.

He would not be orthodox in terms of Baptist doctrine, of course, but in terms of Christianity he is well within the orthodox position. He is Anglican. Most argue against his "New Perspective on Paul" which is neither new nor his. I agree with Reformed theologians (like Piper) who say he has contributed much to our understanding but have questionable doctrines. Not unorthodox, but ideas that are unproven.
That is your opinion, but not mine. I do not know that merely stating our opinions or beliefs is helpful or edifying to anyone.

Scripture proves that position to you, that is why you hold it. Scripture proves it wrong to me, that is why I do not. Just making statements do not add to the dialogue. We need to discuss our differences and engage one another.

How is the wrath of God appeased and propitiate then from your understanding of the atonement?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But in the end it is saying that God takes our punishment Himself rather than inflicting it on us.

Yep! 'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God Gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin' [Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach]

 

[JonC]

Yep! 'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God Gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin' [Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach]

I agree, but mostly because too often people combat PSA falsely (like the cosmic child abuse charge). We see this with other topics as well.

Compare the above statement with what Christus Victor holds - that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer for us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

They are very close, but the little difference is not really that small. I think that this is the difference between a general penal substitution (or aspects of penal substitution....I'm not sure the best way of putting it) and Penal Substitution Atonement as either doctrine or theory.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree, but mostly because too often people combat PSA falsely (like the cosmic child abuse charge). We see this with other topics as well.

Compare the above statement with what Christus Victor holds - that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer for us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

They are very close, but the little difference is not really that small. I think that this is the difference between a general penal substitution (or aspects of penal substitution....I'm not sure the best way of putting it) and Penal Substitution Atonement as either doctrine or theory.

Is wrath of God involved in Christus Victor?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yep! 'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God Gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin' [Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach]

paul would call that the very heart of his Pauline Justification!