Featured BIBLICAL atonement

We have both lived and taught the subject.

What is clear is that YOU don't really understand how error Penal Substitution holds.

No one argues that the Lord was treated with great torture.

That was reflective of any who were being tried as a condemned person to be crucified. That is historical fact.

What is outstandingly clear is His innocence.

 

Can you please explain this error. And why it is so dangerous?

And I ask, if Jesus did not pay for the sin, as the lamb of God who died on the day of atonement. How are our sins paid for?

 

and HOW does Penal Substitution deny this? The more I read these responses, the more I see the utter FALLACY in your reasonings!

 

I have been a Christian going on 60 years. Most do not understand our sinful nature starts at conception not at at our birth. Most translations mistranslate Romans 9:11. Romans 6:23, ". . . the wages of sin is death . . . .we are conceived spiritually dead. Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us . . . .". He received our wages.

 

When you pay for something you expect a return worthy of the payment.

Sin permeates every area of a person's life even that of a believer. There is no human fathoming of the depravity in which we all sink.

What our Savior did by taking upon Himself our curse (as Galatians 3 states) that we who believe, though we sin, are no longer cursed. "There is now therefore no condemnation..." (Romans 8).

Does that mean that Christ was no longer innocent? No! He remained without sin, the pure and satisfactory offering to God.

How then are we free from the sin that some teach must be paid for. First remove the thinking that some price for sin had to be met and look at Romans 6 for an answer:

5For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection. 6We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. 7For anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has dominion over Him. 10The death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. 11So you too must count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
​

If Christ had not died, then sin would remain with power. but the blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and the death renders sin as having no authority or power.

​

 

See my response to this question, above.

 

So you do not think eternal life is a return worthy of the payment? You do not think being made right with God, Having the separation and death caused by sin removed is something worthy of the payment of the cross?

I do not see anything in the above which would make me change my thinking,

The lambs of the day of atonement paid the penalty of sin.

While Yes, Jesus was still sinless. he had to be. If we was a sinner, he would be unqualified to pay for sin.

Remember, again, Jesus is called the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

He paid the price of redemption.

Redemption, Justification are all penal or judicial terms. We are justified (declaired innocent or righteous) even though we are legally guilty, based on the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.

He took the curse for us, so we may be made righteous.

Apart from substitution, we are still dead in our sin are we not?

 

Do you really expect me to take you seriously?
You say that I add to Scripture, but can adduce no evidence.
You say that Romans 3:26 does not say what I claim it says, yet you do not seem to know what I claim it says and you provide no Scripture, no exegesis, no nothing. Just the usual spiel about how clever you were to change your mind. Nothing to show that you have any idea what you are talking about.

You challenged me to find a single Scripture that supported PSA. I have given you three: Isaiah 53:10; Romans 3:25-26; Galatians 3:13. There are plenty more, but you can't answer those, except to say, without any supporting evidence, that 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief' does not mean what it patently does.

 

The teaching of our union with Christ is not in dispute. I am glad that everyone seems to agree on that. The question still remains what is the basis of this. The description of the gospel in post 13 would be fine but it does not explain the basis for Christ being a "redeemer" and a person could question how the cross really fits in if that really is a complete explanation of the gospel. I used to think the old Puritan preachers were going a little overboard when they talked about the sacraments being a "means" to help someone come to Christ. Now I understand how someone could observe the Lord's supper and ask what it means to have shed blood and a broken body.

 

That is understood by me to be a penal substitution of some kind.

 

What separation and death?
If you are referring to the thinking that God abandoned the Son and turned His back on Him, then that isn't Scripturally sound.

The reason it is unsound is that such would present a breach in the unity of the trinity that cannot happen.

No, the shed blood was sprinkled, first for the High Priest and then for the people. Should either the blood or the high priest be foul, then there was no satisfaction.

Do you have any Scripture that states that "He paid the price of redemption" or is that assumed by having been taught that.

The Scripture is very light on the term substitution, but more pointed toward the thinking of satisfaction.

For example, the blood was never a substitute, but a satisfaction.
The goat led into the field was not a substitute but a satisfactory demonstration of the removal of sins to be remembered no more (for the goat would live and never be used again).

Certainly, Galatians 3 declares:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”​

However, what that verse does not teach is that humanity had the curse removed from them. On the contrary, the previous verses show that those who live by the law remain cursed by the law. That the key to such a curse is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many stumble at misreading this passage and therefore misapplication is generated.

Christ did not die because of the curse, He did not die because of sin, He had the authority to lay His life down and take it back up. No human has ever had such authority.

 

Roman’s 5:6 says “Christ died for us”. Are you making a distinction between Christ dying “for us” and Christ dying “instead of us”?

If so, please explain what the difference is?

peace to you

 

They offer no answer but rather explain the verses away.

 

Actually, Jon is denying the Scripture.