Featured The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

Why a torturous death and not a normal death?

 

I don't know. Will have to think on that a while.

 

I disagree. How can there be tension in the persons? Tension would indicate some manner of disagreement, such cannot occur in God.

These points are all good, however, does the NT present God laid the sins on the Son?

Also, there remains a matter of substitution being a biblical concept. Some would consider Him taking upon himself the the iniquities is an example of substitution, however, the OT use of the scapegoat was not a substitution, but a transfer. Substitution is a quid pro quo process, but transfer relies upon no substitution.

Some may present that the Lord substituted righteousness for iniquity. However, that again is not the picture portrayed in the OT concerning the Scapegoats.

 

In post #5 you stated “just stating the passages the theory confirms, doesn’t make the theory less unbiblical”

You then stated in post #9:

You have since edited post #5 to say “…more or less unbiblical”, but it really doesn’t change what you said.

You are acknowledging scripture passages that confirm PSA, and in the same breath you claim PSA is unbiblical and scripture doesn’t confirm PSA.

Thus my reference to herding cats.

I really am done now. Thanks for the conversation.

peace to you

 

No credible theories that I know deny our Savior suffered physically (penal). Substitution may or may not be valid depending upon Scripture rendering in modern thought.

For this to work, do not strain when Jon or someone may not include “theory” when using PSA.

The theory is not biblically sound. PSA has some validity depending on how one might view Scriptures.

For me, “substitution” was not an issue the early church was concerned, but ransom and victory were absolute must have, for they are both are Scripturally sound presentations, IF ransom does not involve some payment made to satanic demands, for that is not biblical.

 

Jesus is the “lamb that takes away the sins of the world”

His sacrifice is modeled on the OT sacrifice for sin. The head of the household placed his hand upon the animals head, symbolically transferring the sin to the animal,(substitution) the animal was killed (Penal judicial punishment for sin), and God forgave those sins for one year. (Atonement)

His sacrifice can only rightly be explained as PSA.

peace to you

 

La la la la la (fingers in my ears) la la la la can’t hear you la la la la

herding cats

peace to you

 

"The conception that Christ on the cross was enduring all the agonies of the elect for all eternity grew directly out of the Romish legalism from which the Reformers did not escape,- to wit, that we still have connection with our responsibilities to Adam the first; that our history was not ended at the cross. But the shed blood brought in before God on the Day of Atonement simply witnessed that a life had been laid down, ended. "The sufferings of all the elect for all eternity" could never take the place of the laid down life of the great Sacrifice. God did not ask for agonies; sin simply could not approach Him! There must be banishment of the sinner from His presence- unless a substitute could come, who, taking the place of the sinner and bearing his sin, could lay down his life. Such was Christ. He "laid down His life that He might take it again".
(This is from William Newell, "Romans Verse by Verse")

@JonC. Is this anything like what you are talking about?

 

La la la la la (fingers in my ears) la la la la can’t hear you

herding cats

Thanks for the prayers. Please ask God to heal my blindness to His word. When God Holy Spirit convinces me that even though PSA is confirmed in scripture, it is still unbiblical, you will be the first person I tell.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

It is different in just about every possible way.
1. The child is a sinner; the Lord Jesus is not.
2. The child is deserving of punishment; the Lord Jesus is not.
3. The Lord Jesus is God; the child is not.
4. The Lord Jesus Christ is bearing the sins of others; the child is not.
And so on.
The one similarity is that the child's father (we hope) loves the child and is not 'pouring out his wrath' upon him, but chastising him to correct him. The Lord Jesus, of course, needs no correction, but 'the chastisement for our peace was upon Him.'

Christ was bearing our sin (1 Peter 2:24) and receiving the punishment due to us for it to satisfy the justice of God. What I have said is that God's wrath was against sin, not against Christ, who never ceased to be the Beloved Son.

You are confusing wrath and punishment. You need to put your thoughts in order.

And that comment is the reason why I find myself unable to discuss with you. The temptation to answer one pathetic insult with another becomes too great. Therefore this is my last post on this thread which BTW you opened for me without asking me. If I had wanted to open a new thread, I would have done so.

Scripture is absolutely sufficient. It teaches that the Lord Jesus was not some sort of divine whipping boy for God, which seems to be what you are suggesting, but that He was satisfying the justice of God. I repeat what I wrote before. If Christ has not paid the penalty for my sins, and yours in full, nothing is more certain than that we shall have to pay it myself. Otherwise how is God going to be 'just, and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:26)? How is He going to be 'faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness' (1 John 1:9)?

'....Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness.........to demonstrate at the present time His justice' (Romans 3:25-26).

 

What a load of old rubbish that is, Dave. I hope you don't believe it.

 

PSA is confirmed by scripture.

You stated in post #5 that just quoting passages that confirm PSA doesn’t mean it is not “unbiblical”.

And so we agree, your statement that even though PSA is confirmed by scripture it remains unbiblical is completely foolish.

Peace to you