Featured The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

God did not punish Jesus but punished the sin He laid upon Jesus. I'd love for ypu to provide an actual verse with that one as well.

 

My point is it is not actually in the Bible. Anybody can say anything is there, even though it really isn't, "when properly understood".

I have acknowledged our sinfulness and Jesus bearing our sins, dying for our sins, and atoning for us.

I will never again acknowledge God punishing Christ instead of punishing us....or punishing our sin laid upon Christ instead of punishing our sin remaining on us....because it is not in the Word of God or teachings of Scripture.

BUT I understand that is your belief and respect ypu. I affirmed Penal Substitution Theory for most of my life. It was not until God drew me to the realization it was not a biblical teaching that I changed my view. It certainly was not something I wanted to do.

That said, God has opened up so much of Scripture that was obscured by Penal Substitution Theory. So I appreciate His guidance.

I guess our growth is in stages. At the start I probably needed the crutch of a Western worldview to understand other aspects. We see this with people being saved and growing under Arminianism only to move away from the doctrine as they mature.

 

Yep. God will never condemn the Righteous or acquit the guilty.

The simple (and biblical) solution is a rebirth.

The issue is it is foolishness to mane because it doesn't conform to the expectations of men. It's just too simple for some (even Christians) to believe.

 

I do dispute that the Father inflicted pain and suffering on Christ. Here I believe the early church (and most of Christianity throughout history) correct).

It is important to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture (that is, take Scripture as a whole, compare Scripture with Scripture).

Consider this passage:

Isaiah 53:9–12 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

How does Penal Substitution Theory I turret this passage?

Penal Substitution Theory interprets this via human philosophy, not Scripture, and voncludes that Christ suffered at the hand of God, that God inflicted pain and suffering on Christ.

How does Scripture interpret this passage?

Scripture confirms that the World, the power of evil, "wicked men", inflicted pain and suffering on Christ but this was the predetermined plan of God - it was the will of God (it pleased God to crush Him).

Acts 2:22–28 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. “For David says of Him, ‘I saw the Lord always in my presence; For He is at my right hand, so that I will not be shaken. ‘Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted; Moreover my flesh also will live in hope; Because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.


Scripture is the exact opposite of Penal Substitution Theory. The Theory replaces the the evil of this world with God.

 

Who inflicted the affliction?

Scripture tells us that the World inflicted the suffering and death on Christ but that this was the will of God.

The passage makes it clear that the people who caused the suffering ("we") considered Christ smitten by God, but instead ("yet") He was bearing our sins.

Re-read the passage.

 

Penal Substitution Theory is the idea that God inflicted punishment on Christ - that Christ experienced God's judgment instead of us experiencing God's judgment. It is the same error the Jews who opposed God make.

I do not have a philosophy of the Atonement. I take Scripture as it comes, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture even if the result is simple or if I don't like it.

The difference between our views is I have simply removed what you add to Scripture. The issue you are having is the effect your addition has on other doctrines.

The reason the thread is open is I won't close it because I started it and am a participant. Another Staff member can close it and we can continue on another.

 

Amen!

I wanted to get into this, God's law, etc but don't think we have enough time on this thread.

In short, God's law is absolute and the failure is on the part of man. Men hold a corrupt view of what is right and what is wrong. Penal Substitution Theory holds this same corrupt view.

The OT foreshadows (points to ) Christ. The sacrificial system points to God sending His own Son as a sin offering (an atoning sacrifice). In the OT it is God's forbearance, passing over sins until the New Covenant.

Christ died for our sins according to Scripture, suffering under the corrupt justice of man which was the predetermined will of God.

Scripture teaches the exact opposite of Penal Substitution Theory IF you allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.

The whole point of the Atonement was God offering His Son to bear our sin, be declared guilty and condemned by the World, and vindicated by God do that we in Him would have life.

I'll start a thread at dome time so we can explore our differences and hopefully learn where we stand and why.

 

The continuation is here:

Penal Substitution Theory