Featured TULIP Was Never Alive to Begin With

The problem with not identifying the problem plainly IS the problem. The solution of resorting to childish fleshly, adhomenimic attacks is unbecoming of supposed mature Christians. No wonder the name of Christ is blasphemed among unbelievers. Shame on you & me. Repent. Be cleansed. Move on in the Spirit.

This discussion is vitally important because it rests upon one's definition of who God is & what the gospel message is & why Christ died on the cross.

There are at least 5 dominant views of the atonement. The significance of their differences is immense & important. Only one appears biblically correct, orthodox & historically passed down. The others will have within them some elements of truth, but in fact are insufficient to be consistent with the totality of Scripture teaching.

The purpose of a theory of atonement usually tries to answer: who is God as Scripture defines Him? What is the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross? Why did Jesus die? What does His death mean for the world today?

No real definition of Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory has been offered as I perused this thread. Once the theory is plainly defined, then one can defend or refute it. And no actual plainly defined error has been pointed out in all this thread concerning this theory nor actual Scripture refuting it. Also no actual Scripture has been given defending the idea of God's wrath & how it is applied to both sin & the sinner & how Christ is the One choosing to receive that wrath on Himself in place of those for which He is substituting, 'the righteous (just) for or in place of the unrighteous (unjust). The whole issue revolves around the first word: penal.

So let's first define what the theory of penal substitutionary Atonement is & see if all agree on what it means, whether one disagrees with it or not. Then we can move on from there. If I miss any basic points feel free to incorporate that in the basic definition & we can move on, KNOWING that all are on the same page, discussing the same defined issue, so no misunderstanding is made as to what is being discussed.

Definition#1 (Ray Weedon): A penalty had to be paid, based on God's righteous standards, anger & holiness. It was paid by a substitute on our behalf. Payment was based on the spilling of blood in the death of a perfectly righteous sacrificial Lamb of God. “Christ’s death was “penal” in that He bore a penalty when He died. His death was also a “substitution” in that He was a substitution for us when He died. This has been the orthodox understanding of the atonement held by evangelical theologians, in contrast to other views that attempt to explain the atonement apart from the idea of the wrath of God [all mankind by nature are under the wrath of God--Eph 2:1-3; John 3:36] or payment of the penalty for sin. [In this case the focus is not so much on the intensity of God’s anger remaining on people but on the intensity of the punishment that awaits people who don’t believed in Jesus. He experienced the punishment & wrath of God for our sinful disobedience that we deserved, because He took them upon Himself as a substitute in our place.]

Definition#2 (CARM): Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the view that Christ was a legal substitute for us on the cross & that he bore the penalty for our sins that is due to us (all mankind under the wrath of God--Penal means legal as in penal-colony). Jesus was made under the Law (Gal 4:4) & bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). At his crucifixion, he was “pierced through for our transgressions” & received our chastening & scourging (Isa. 53:4-5). What was due to us he bore by being made sin (2 Cor. 5:21). This is exactly what the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is. This is also called the Vicarious Atonement of Christ. His sacrifice was according to the Law (Penal) & He took our judgment (substitutionary) thereby satisfying the requirement of the Law of God & saving the lost through His legal, substitutionary atonement.

"HE was pierced through FOR OUR transgressions, He was crushed FOR OUR iniquities; The CHASTENING FOR OUR WELL-BEING fell UPON HIM & BY HIS SCOURGING WE ARE HEALED.”

“HE MADE HIM TO BE SIN on our behalf--Who knew NO sin, SO THAT we might become the righteousness of God IN HIM.”

"HE HIMSELF--BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY on the cross, SO THAT we might die to sin & live to righteousness; FOR BY HIS WOUNDS YOU WERE HEALED.”

 

I took their statement about Saul /Paul being a Calvinist as meaning Paul's gospel parallels those of TULIP. Maybe we can address that instead of being dismissive and sarcastic instead.

 

Those who falsely judge like yourself play God and want to make like they know the motives of people. I use irony (not being dismissive or sarcastic) often for my humor and several others caught my humor on my post. Sadly you choose to falsely read my motive. And I move on.

Thank you Jon, for responding to my prior post and clarifying your position on your present understanding of atonement theory and also your understanding of the penal substitution atonement theory. It is nice to see a good discussion without all the condescension, false judging, ad hominems, etc. of the flesh. I will try and get back to address what you wrote.