Featured PSA as defined in "Pierced for My Trangressions"

“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 of sin”. (Pierced for my Transgressions)

At first glance the definition may seem biblical and one may reasonably suspect that the debate over PSA (the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement) is merely in application or interpretation. The definition has many truths but at the same time it inserts several words and ideas that are foreign to Scripture.

Christ died according to the Scriptures. Christ died for our sins. Christ lay down His life for us. PSA replaces the historical Christian concept and biblical truth that Christ died for us with the addition (the “changing of Scripture”) that Christ died instead of us.

Another issue, of course, is the inconsistency of PSA in the death of Christ. Christ experienced instead of us the “curse due to fallen humanity”, which is physical death. But Christians still experience a physical death. And the “curse due to fallen humanity” is not a physical death so horrible as Christ experienced. What PSA holds that Christ experienced instead of us (so that we would experience) is a punishment not based on the Fall but centered in the work of Christ (all judgment is given Christ).

So the definition is flawed even what it asserts – PSA asserts one thing but in practice it holds that Christ suffered the curse due to fallen humanity AND instead of us suffered the punishment due fallen humanity as the penalty of sin.

BUT even here PSA fails. The “punishment” is primarily “the wrath to come”, which is the “Second Death”. Christ did not, per PSA, really experience “the Second Death” instead of us experiencing the “Second Death” but experienced something that was substitutionary for this punishment. Christ was not cast into the Lake of Fire and was not eternally separated from God. So let’s revisit the definition and correct it’s errors to make it what PSA actually believes in practice, not what just sounds more biblical.

PSA 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 of sin. BUT PSA teaches that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer death and the curse that is common to all men and to suffer a punishment that will satisfy the demands of divine justice so that we will not suffer the “wrath to come”.

 

That's fine, take your time brother.

My comment is PSA. I have granted that PSA holds the punishment is more than physical death. But nowhere is the consequences or punishment of sin described as the Cross (not even the "judgment to come".

When you look to the cross I believe that you see Christ suffering death (physical death) and (probably primarily) that "wrath to come". But that "wrath to come" is not the Cross. Is there a reason you believe that the cross (that Christ suffer and die in such a way) is actually necessary?

I agree about the quoted definition in relation to the book, however I have to point out that you gave the same treatment to that one quote I offered of Mark Heim. I have read "Pierced for My Transgressions". I agree with the critics of the book. It speaks to those who hold PSA but is not very persuasive to those who do not (it makes too many assumptions).

 

I believe it is more than just a physical death.

But I do believe that the wages of sin is a physical death because this is based on Adam's transgression. The OT does not consider this to be more than a physical death. BUT all will be judged "on that day". The difference is I believe this judgment has always been a Christ-centered judgment. All judgment is given tot he Son. This judgment (the "wrath to come") is not only because of Adam's sin. It is also because of God's reconciliation (John 3).

Why do you believe that this curse due to fallen humanity includes more than a physical death?

 

You have said this before and you were shown to be wrong before.

The word does mean on one's behalf - NOT instead of.

 

No. Your conclusion is wrong. It has been corrected in the past but apparently that did not take.

John 15:13 does not use the Greek word huper. The word "for" is there to make sense of the verse in English. It is "for" and it is an English, not a Greek, work added.

The word huper (for, on one's behalf) is used 3 times in John, none of the instances indicating "in stead of":

John 1:30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'

John did not say "after me comes a Man who has a greater rank than I, for He existed before me" instead of Jesus saying it. He said it on behalf of Jesus (for Jesus).

John 17:19 "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

The passage does not make since if it is "instead of" for they will also be sanctified in truth.

John 18:14 Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people.

It is expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people. Here the sentence would allow either definition BUT it does not make sense to use "instead of" based on the context of the passage. The statement was Caiphas' advise to the Jews.

The problem here is that you have allowed your theology (here an idea that empties the cross of its proper meaning) to base your interpretation on a word that does not actually exist in the proof text you are offering. More problematic is where the word does exist the meaning does not mean "instead of" but "in one's behalf" or "for one's benefit".

Please revisit your Greek copy of John. Your claim is false.

 

Exactly. A sin offering. In the OT sacrificial system the sacrifice was not "punished instead of" the people for whom the sacrifice covered sins. And Christ was not punished "instead of" us. This is clear when you look at the word meanings. In John the word huper NEVER means "in stead of" but means in one's behalf or to one's benefit.

Nowhere except in man's theological system is Christ punished instead of man. Instead our chastening falls on Him, He bears our sins, dies for our sin, dies for us, the Father is pleased to crush Him, and by His stripes we are healed and escape the coming wrath. This is the righteousness of God manifested apart form the law.

Just like the pharisees,however, some cannot understand how God can be just and the justifier of sinners except his righteousness be manifested through the law. They respond "how can this be?". But Scripture tells us how our salvation is God's righteousness apart from the law. If people would only read without the blinders of tradition.

Now, as far as Jesus saying" it is finished" before Jesus actually died, I can't help but see that as a silly argument.

 

Jesus did know all things were now accomplished. AND Jesus also know that our salvation would not be completely accomplished until the Resurrection (where Paul places our hope). You are assuming that Christ's death was meaningless (just a foregone conclusion). You are wrong.

All your position does is deny that physical death is a consequence of sin that Christ had to experience. It still does not justify PSA (only moves it more unbibilcal ground).

 

Using your method this is not quite accurate.

Physical death will be done away prior to the final judgment (it is appointed men once to die and then the judgment).

 

@Martin Marprelate ,

Did my observation make sense to you?

From what I can see John 15:13 does not use the Greek word huper. The word "for" is added in the English. But the word huper is used 3 times in John, none of the instances indicating "in stead of":

John 1:30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'

John 17:19 "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

John 18:14 Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people.

Please revisit your Greek copy of John and let me know. You offered the verse as a proof text for your view, but instead it should be offered as a proof text for mine. [/QUOTE]

 

That is strange. I only referenced one copy (whatever I had at hand open on my computer). But it really does not matter.

If John uses huper 4 times and 3 of the 4 times the word does not mean "instead of" then it is normal not to change the meaning of that 4th time to suit our theology. The point is the same.

John 1:30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'

I have noticed the same issue with the Greek alphabet on the site. I do not know the issue. I have not had this problem in the past.