Featured Penal Substitution.

He made Him who aknew no sin to be bsin on our behalf, so that we might become the crighteousness of God in Him. 2 For 5:21

Scripture is clear this verse without doubt says that Jesus became the sin we were guilty of. This act made is righteousness through faith.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we fmight die to sin and glive to righteousness. hBy his wounds you have been healed. 1 Peter 2:24 His suffering paid the debt for our sin as He took on our sin, became guilty of our sin, died for our sin. That act propitiated the Father, satisfied His wrath and considered out offense paid for.

Jesus became our sin and took our punishment. Anything contrary to that is pure heresy. It is heresy because it goes to the heart of the gospel.

 

If Christ did not take on our sins and die for them in our stead, then why did the Father forsake him? Hab 1:13, says, "Thou are of purer eyes that to behold evil, and cast not look on iniquity..." The Father separating himself from the Son is evident in his forsaking him. This would not have been necessary had Christ not taken our sins upon him.

The very self existent Son being separated from the very self existent Father is a punishment/wrath/darkness for sin beyond our comprehension.

 

here we go again!

there are certain folk on here, who simply do not grasp that Penal Substitution is the ONLY Biblical Teaching on the Death of Jesus Christ. they will continue to reject and deny the CLEAR Bible passages that Teach this great Truth!

Why the need for yet another thread is beyond me

 

Leviticus 16:21. 'And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.' The sins are not symbolically placed on the goat; according to the text they are actually put there. The text is typical rather than symbolic.

2 Corinthians 5:21. 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' Christ is made sin; we are made righteousness. This is what Luther called the 'great exchange.' He takes our sin upon Himself and pays the penalty for it; we receive His righteousness imputed to us. 1 Peter 2:24. 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' How could our Lord bear our sins in His body unless they were somehow transferred to Him? 1 John 1:8, 10 have nothing to say on this. But 1 John 1:9 states that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. How can He be just and forgive sins without punishment? He doesn't. Christ has paid the penalty for them in full.

Psalms 103:12. 'As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.' Amen! But Exodus 34:7 tells us that God is 'by no means clearing the guilty.' It is only because the Lord Jesus Christ has Himself removed our transgressions from us by paying the penalty Himself that God is able to be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

 

There is actually no such thing as 'Penal Substitution Theory.'
There is a Doctrine of Penal Substitution which states that 'God gave Himself i the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin' ('Pierced for our Transgression' by Ovey, Jeffery and Sach, IVP, 2007). Although this is a modern definition, the gist of these words has ben upheld by most of the Church Fathers.

There is a 'theory of penal substitution theory' which makes certain incorrect statements about Penal Substitution such as:
1. God was angry with Jesus. This is not so. God is angry with sinners (Psalms 5:4-6)..
2. God punished Jesus. This is not so. God punished sin; The Lord Jesus was made the sin bearer (Isaiah 53:6; 2 Cor. 5:21).
3. The Lord Jesus was an unwilling participant at the cross. This is not so. Psalm 40:8; John 10:17-18; Philippians 2:5-8.

 

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution has ben taught since the earliest days of the Church. The ECFs were very taken up arguing with Gnostics and others about the nature of Christ, but when they do write about PSA, they support it.

Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [Epistle to the Corinthians XLIX]
Irenaeus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man' ['Adversus Haereses,' v, i, 1-2]

It is also quite wrong to say that Calvin was the first of the Reformers to write about Penal Substitution. Luther and Tyndale taught the doctrine before Calvin. Probably Bucer as well, but I don't have his works in front of me.

Penal Substitution is so clearly and so prominently taught in Scripture that it is a wonder that anyone would deny it.

 

We agree with Pauline Justification, while you reject it!

 

So did :

Clement of Rome:

"Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the

Ignatius


"Now, He suffered all these things, for our sakes that we might be saved"

Epistle of Barnabas


"For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is eifected by His blood of sprinkling. For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] saith thus: "He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer



There are more.

Look once someone says that Jesus took on our since and suffered because of them, then they try to make the case that it doesn't mean Penal substitution they have lost all credibility.

 

Any who reads Stott the Cross of Christ and Morris the Apostolic Preaching of the Cross and the Atonement its meaning and significance , would have to agree with Psa!

 

I do not know anything about the mythical 'Penal Substitution Theory.'
If Christ gives 'His life for our life and His flesh for our flesh' That is Penal Substitution. He takes the penalty instead of us.

 

Strange are there were FEW who argued against psa from either the reformed or Baptist tradition until very recently, when the concept of wrath of God became something seen as "pagan!"

 

When Christ took our sins, he took them all, including our going after the gods of the nations in the form of believing/ perverting judgment and justice by the errors of their doctrinal systems. The main point of Israel being forsaken because they went after the gods of the nations is mentioned repeatedly in the old testament Deut 28:20, Jud 10:10, 1 Sam 8:8, 2 Kgs 22:17 are just a few of the examples. The Father said that because Israel had forsaken him, he would forsake them.

1. Christ is of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look upon iniquity means he will not justify the wicked works (failing to do judgment and justice by perverting the law) as did the scribes, lawyers and Pharisees. He refused to do judgment according to their wicked interpretations of the law.

2. Indeed God will not punish the righteous and acquit the wicked because he will always do judgment and justice. Christ willingly took our sins knowing what would be the cost and that was not just dying a physical death on the cross. To be separated from the Father would be an even greater wrath. Or do you not believe that Christ was separated from the Father?

3. Christ asking the Father, "Why has thou forsaken me?" is Christ making a definitive statement of fact. He did not ask, "Please do not forsake me." In paying for the sins of his people, as mentioned above, Christ had to pay for their sins of unbelief causing them to forsake the Father. He stood in their/our stead and was separated/forsaken by the Father as the Father had said he would do to them. Christ witnesses plainly that the Father indeed forsook him.

4. Christ also witnessed that the Father had already given him the power to lay down his life and the power to take it up again
The Father indeed did deliver him.

5 The early church knew the truth of penal substitution. John Calvin did not discover anything that the early church did not already know. Eph 3:10 says, "...that it might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God." It was already revealed

 

Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [Epistle to the Corinthians XLIX]
Irenaeus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man' ['Adversus Haereses,' v, i, 1-2]

All one has to do is read what the extracts say. There is a penalty, and Christ pays it on our behalf.
That these are very short comments is true. As I have said, the ECFs had other things on their minds. There is a lot more to the Doctrine than just a few lines, but nevertheless, it is there in embryo.