37818
Well-Known Member
The question Christians need to correctly understand. What is the difference between what is deemed to be a false teaching of Penal Substitution Theory from the Biblical penal substitution?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Penal Substitution.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
That is easy.
What you and I are talking about in agreement....what you call "penal substitution"...is God laying our iniquities on Christ, Christ laying down His life for us, Christ ransoming us, Christ becoming a curse for us, Christ being made sin for us, us being healed by His stripes, Christ being the Last Adam, the Firstborn of many brethern, the Propitiation in Whom we escape the wrath to come, etc....that is biblical.
Where things go off the reservation and into philosophical (and unbilical) carnal "wisdom" is in the amalgamation of Christianity with paganism called the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
The difference between what you and I agree upon (what you call penal substitution) and the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is the Theory is based on a lie (it is based on a humanistic idea of justice popular in the 16th century). Penal Substitution theorists agree with us, but then they add that Christ suffered God's wrath, God punished Jesus instead of punishing us, sins can be transfered from a person to another person, God condemned the Righteous to acquit the guilty, etc.
What you and I agree on (what you call penal substitution) is biblical. But calling it penal substitution can lead others to think we hold to another gospel by believing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement correct.
37818
Well-Known Member
How is that not as in 1 Peter 3:18, ". . . For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, . . . ?"
????
Christ (the Just) died to save us (the unjust), that He might bring us to God.
I don't get your question.
I already said I believe what you call "penal substitution" to be biblical. It is the Penal Substitution Theory that I find unbilical and in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But yes, the Just for the unjust. We are purchased with His blood.
A better question is how IS that as in 1 Peter 3:18, ". . . For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, . . . ?"
Have you not already spoken against sins being transfered from one person to another? You were correct that the idea is unbilical. Do you not know that God will never condemn the just, or acquit the wicked? God is immutable. His Word stands eternally.
@37818 ,
Do you believe that God has to punish sinful actions even if this is not punishing the actual wicked (the person who committed those transgressions)?
Do you believe that transgressions can be transfered from one person to another person?
Do you believe that God condemned the Righteous in order to acquit the wicked?
Do you believe that God has to punish sinful actions even if this is not punishing the actual wicked (the person who committed those transgressions)?
Do you believe that transgressions can be transfered from one person to another person?
Do you believe that God condemned the Righteous in order to acquit the wicked?
37818
Well-Known Member
What does 1 Peter 3:18 claim to do in the words, ". . . For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, . . . ?"
What does Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 disallow?
I believe the passage to mean what is stated - that Christ suffered for sins (for our sins), the Just (Christ) for the unjust (man).
Notice what the passage does not say? It does not say God punished the Just instead of punishing the unjust.
In a nutshell, the wicked will die for their own sins. Those are just two passages among many confirming sins cannot be transfered from one to another, and that God being just will not commit the abomination of punishing the Righteous for the sins of the wicked, or acquitting the wicked.
That is just one reason I hold the view that God recreates the wicked and forgives the repentant (in Christ there is no condemnation, the wicked will be condemned but we are not the wicked).
Again, I have no problem with what you have described and call "penal substitution". My argument is against the idea God committed a sin by punishing Christ in order to forgive the wicked. It is against the false doctrine that man's sins can be transfered from men and then laid on Christ.
37818
Well-Known Member
In Hell both the death of both the body and soul, Matthew 10:28. Jesus soul died per Matthew 20:28 and other passages. But Him in His soul did not remain dead prior to His physical death, John 19:28 and Luke 23:46.
Jesus did die bodily (as Scripture points out, He bore our sins bodily).
My point is that to say God punished our sin in Christ, punished Christ instead of us, transfered our sins from us, etc. is another gospel not taught in Scripture as it makes God unjust per the passages you have provided.
So far it seems the only thing you and I disagree on is what to call your view. My reasoning is that if you call it Penal Substitution then it can be confused with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
Since you agree with Scripture that our sins could not have been transferred from us to Christ and that God did not punish the Righteous for the sins of the wicked, I just see it unwise to adopt a title for your view that is already taken by false teachings.
37818
Well-Known Member
His body died after the death for sins was finished per John 19:28. At one point prior He was forsaken on the cross by God per Psalms 22:1. And only Matthew and Mark records Him being forsaken. By time of Luke 23:46 He was no longer being forsaken. This was after John 19:28.
No. But I get that is your interpretation.
Correct me if I misunderstand your view.
I take it you depart from Penal Substitution Theory in that:
1. You affirm passages stating that sins cannot be transfered to one person to another. Therefore God laying our iniquities on Christ is not God removing our iniquities from us. I also take it you accept the passage stating that Christ shared our infirmities.
2. You affirm, I think, that it is equally an abomination to God to punish the Righteous and acquit the wicked. I also take it you affirm passages describing Christ as righteous and God's "Righteous One". Therefore I take it you reject the unbilical idea that God punished Christ to acquit the wicked.
3. I assume you accept passages that state God will forgive upon repentance. So I take it you deny that God must punish sins to forgive sinners.
37818
Well-Known Member
This is problematic. Christ had our sins placed on Him. His soul died.
Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34.
Was already completed by time of John 19:28. He was no longer forsaken Luke 23:46.
I agree that God placed our transgressions on Christ. He became a curse for us.
What I am asking is whether you believe Scripture (the passages you said you affirm) or if you believe God transfered transgressions from us and placed them on Christ.
The difference is important. Christ could have shared our infirmities rather than God removing them from us.
I am asking if you affirm Scripture or the Penal Substitution Theory in regards to this topic.
If you reject Scripture and instead believe God transferred our sins from us and placed them on Christ then there is too far a gap between us to even get into secondary issues.
37818
Well-Known Member
Transfered. Does not seem to be the correct concept. Had our sins (1 John 2:2) placed on Him (Isaiah 53:6, 2 Corinthians 5:21). Romans 5:8, Mark 10:45, 1 Timothy 2:6.
Matthew 27:46 when and how.
If God, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Chris,t has not taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, then nothing is more certain than that we must pay for them ourselves.
I agree. Our sins were laid on Him, He shared our infirmities, but our sins remained in us as well.
Sins cannot be transferred. The righteous cannot be punished in place of the wicked.
That is why we know the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is unbilical.
So what does it mean that God laid our iniquities on Him?
It means exactly what it says.
Sins can be transferred. (Leviticus 16:21; 2 Corinthians 5:21). That is one way that we know that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is Biblical.
If God, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Chris,t has not taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, then nothing is more certain than that we must pay for them ourselves.
If God, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Chris,t has not taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, then nothing is more certain than that we must pay for them ourselves.
No. Scripture is very clear that sins cannot be transferred from one person to another, but that the wicked will be condemned for their own sins.
The sacrifices did not remove sins (Scripture is also very clear about this). They were temporary measures and God, in His forbearance, passed over past sins committed.
- Status