In support of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[JonC]

Yep! That sounds like P.S. to me. It may not fit your theory you keep talking about but it suits me fine.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where the words come from. I told you where my quotation came from; it is common courtesy for you to do the same. When you do so, I will comment on them.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.

I know it sounds like the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is my point.

You think Gregory's Ransom Theory is Penal Substitution Theory.

My belief of the Cross sounds like the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement to you!!!

You are unable to discern doctrine in this topic (your tradition blinds you).

This was very plain to tell when you called Gregory's Ransom Theory "Penal Substitution". You even quoted from Gregory (granted, you left our significant portions of the text).

Somebody told you the ink blot was a bat and now that is all you see.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

I'm going to give you an example (one we used before).

I believe that Christ bore our sins bodily, that He suffered on our account. I believe Christ was wounded for our sins and that the chastisement for our well being, our peace, was upon Him. I believe it is by His stripes that we are healed.

I believe that the Lord was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief. The Father offered His Son as a offering for us,forsook Him to suffer and die on a Roman cross, and He died for our sins. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the world, and in Him we escape the wrath to come. He knew no sin but was made sin for us. He became a curse for us. His flesh for our flesh.

In your view that is Penal Substitution. But it isn't. And that is the issue here. I'm not sure you know what you even believe because you behave as if those truths are the sum total of Penal Substitution. As is often is revealed in your posts on this topic, you should know better.

Penal Substitution uses Scripture and has a lot of biblical points. That is not what makes it wrong. Even the worst Christian heresies are mostly Scripture.

 

[Van]

I must have missed it.

Where one or more of our experts explained if PSA says Jesus propitiated God or Jesus provided the means of propitiation?

I am still waiting for someone who is a proponent of PSA to post "Yes, Jesus propitiated God, and therefore the sin burden for the specific individuals He died for was removed at that time."

But, unless I missed it, not one of these plain speaking advocates has set the record straight.

 

[JonC]

I am still waiting for someone who is a proponent of PSA to post "Yes, Jesus propitiated God, and therefore the sin burden for the specific individuals He died for was removed at that time."

But, unless I missed it, not one of these plain speaking advocates has set the record straight.

Exactly!!!!!!

I am starting to think PSA advocates know, at least at some level, their faith is unbiblical so they want to talk about Scripture we all believe rather than actual PSA.

Or, it's simply "doublespeak". They say one thing but mean another, never actually saying what they mean.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am still waiting for someone who is a proponent of PSA to post "Yes, Jesus propitiated God, and therefore the sin burden for the specific individuals He died for was removed at that time."

But, unless I missed it, not one of these plain speaking advocates has set the record straight.

That's because it isn't the case.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

I'm going to give you an example (one we used before).

I believe that Christ bore our sins bodily, that He suffered on our account. I believe Christ was wounded for our sins and that the chastisement for our well being, our peace, was upon Him. I believe it is by His stripes that we are healed.

I believe that the Lord was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief. The Father offered His Son as a offering for us,forsook Him to suffer and die on a Roman cross, and He died for our sins. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the world, and in Him we escape the wrath to come. He knew no sin but was made sin for us. He became a curse for us. His flesh for our flesh.

In your view that is Penal Substitution. But it isn't. And that is the issue here. I'm not sure you know what you even believe because you behave as if those truths are the sum total of Penal Substitution. As is often is revealed in your posts on this topic, you should know better.

Penal Substitution uses Scripture and has a lot of biblical points. That is not what makes it wrong. Even the worst Christian heresies are mostly Scripture.

[Snip]
WILL YOU GIVE ME THE REFERENCE TO THE QUOTATION YOU POSTED FROM GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS? YES OR NO? AND IF NOT, WHY NOT? You will get nothing more out of me until you provide it.

 

[Van]

That's because it isn't the case.

Thanks once again for telling me the claim presented in the OP was wrong, but somehow I missed where you said, "Christ's sacrificial death provided the means of salvation for all humanity."

Calvinists are long of saying what they do not believe and short on telling what they specifically do believe.

 

[DaveXR650]

In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.

Thanks once again for telling me the claim presented in the OP was wrong, but somehow I missed where you said, "Christ's sacrificial death provided the means of salvation for all humanity."

How can you say that if you really read the OP? I marvel too about how you missed it.

 

[Van]

How can you say that if you really read the OP? I marvel too about how you missed it.

Note no content folks, but big league deflection, turning to a petty attack on me, rather than presenting his own view. Go figure.

"Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice."​

 

[DaveXR650]

Note no content folks, but big league deflection, turning to a petty attack on me, rather than presenting his own view. Go figure.

"Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice."

You asked a question. I provided the quote from the OP that you asked if maybe you missed. Well you did and there it is. What's the problem now? Why is that a deflection?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks once again for telling me the claim presented in the OP was wrong, but somehow I missed where you said, "Christ's sacrificial death provided the means of salvation for all humanity."

Because that isn't right either.

Calvinists are long of saying what they do not believe and short on telling what they specifically do believe.

The doctrine of penal substitution states that God give Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
What that doesn't say of course is that our Lord gave Himself for every single human being. But that's another doctrine.

 

[atpollard]

I have a specific question that is narrow enough to possibly BE answered.

Where does scripture say that we deserve to be punished?
(As in “Jesus suffered the punishment that we deserved”).

I have in mind Ezekiel 18 …

21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?​

… where God seems to simply “forgive” those that seek Him and to punish those that turn away from Him (in the rest of the chapter). So I am looking for Scriptural clarification of this “debt” of punishment.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Where does scripture say that we deserve to be punished?

Jeremiah 5:9. '"Shall I not punish them for these things?" Says the LORD. "And shall I not avenge Myself on such a nation as this?"'
But it was because God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, that He set forth our Lord as a propitiation.

 

[Silverhair]

Because that isn't right either.

The doctrine of penal substitution states that God give Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
What that doesn't say of course is that our Lord gave Himself for every single human being. But that's another doctrine.

Actually it does say just that Martin, you just do not like the answer.
1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. NKJV

 

[Van]

Because that isn't right either.

The doctrine of penal substitution states that God give Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
What that doesn't say of course is that our Lord gave Himself for every single human being. But that's another doctrine.

Note that neither Calvinist is able to say what they actually believe. Was God propitiated, or did Jesus provide the means of propitiation?

 

[Van]

Here is the truth folks, PSA is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. Full Stop.

Jesus had no sin of his own. It was not his own penalty that he bore, but he was a substitute for others, for those who would be joined to him by faith. This we call penal substitutionary atonement — Jesus reconciled sinners to God by being their substitute punishment​

Obviously the truth these posters seek to hide is that they believe individuals were chosen before creation, and Christ death "reconciled" those sinners to God.

OTOH, the biblical doctrine is Christ's death provided the means of reconciliation such that everyone God transfers into Christ is at that time reconciled. So God is actually reconciling the world, one sinner at a time, as He transfers them into Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

Obviously the truth these posters seek to hide is that they believe individuals were chosen before creation, and Christ death "reconciled" those sinners to God.

Why would you act like there is some kind of grand conspiracy going on? We have to agree that the death of Christ occurred at a specific time in history. It was planned and known by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit at some point way before that. So can't you give a little grace to high Calvinists or even hyper-Calvinists if they insist that what Christ accomplished at the time of His death He really did accomplish?

Obviously the truth these posters seek to hide is that they believe individuals were chosen before creation, and Christ death "reconciled" those sinners to God.

Yes, that would be taught in Calvinism. Except the timing of the reconciliation doesn't occur until the individual believes. Some Calvinists do believe that justification actually occurred at the time of the crucifixion or even before. I've never seen it hidden. Do you live under a rock?

OTOH, the biblical doctrine is Christ's death provided the means of reconciliation such that everyone God transfers into Christ is at that time reconciled. So God is actually reconciling the world, one sinner at a time, as He transfers them into Christ.

This sounds very Calvinistic since God is doing the transferring without waiting for you to perform any conditional activity. Are you a closet Calvinist? Once again, most Calvinists believe that you are lost until such time as you believe. You will discover that many Calvinists believe that you may be born again immediately before you believe and all Calvinists believe that faith is a gift from God rather than a thing that God has to wait for to see what you are going to do. When a Calvinist says faith is a condition, he means it must be there or you don't have justification. He does not mean that it is a condition in the sense that God is saying that all that can be done has been done and now the rest is up to you. Although, some Calvinist sermons do sound like they are saying that so yeah, I waver on that sometimes myself.

Here is the truth folks, PSA is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement.

And you are correct in this. Some Calvinists do teach that if you lose particular atonement you lose PSA. Sinclair Ferguson has a PDF on this very subject on the Monergism website. I do not agree with him on that. But he says it openly so no, it's not a Trojan horse. I think it would be fair to say that Owen's argument in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" for limited atonement was based on PSA.

 

[JonC]

[snip]
WILL YOU GIVE ME THE REFERENCE TO THE QUOTATION YOU POSTED FROM GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS? YES OR NO? AND IF NOT, WHY NOT? You will get nothing more out of me until you provide it.

Sorry, I assumed you knew the reference. Origen and Gregory are the two most often mentioned for holding Ransom Theory when studying Christian history . . . Augustine's "trap" is another classic example (although his theology was a combination of Ransom Theory and Recapitulation).

It is in Gregory's "Address on Religious Instruction".

My point is Gregory also believed that Christ bore our sins bodily, that He suffered on our account, that Christ was wounded for our sins and that the chastisement for our well being, our peace, was upon Him. That it is by His stripes that we are healed. And that the Lord was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief. The Father offered His Son as a offering for us,forsook Him to suffer and die on a Roman cross, and He died for our sins. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the world, and in Him we escape the wrath to come. He knew no sin but was made sin for us. He became a curse for us. His flesh for our flesh.

That is what I believe as well, although I disagree with Gregory's understanding of Ransom and your Penal Substitution Theory.

All Christians throughout history believe that Christ bore our sins bodily, that He suffered on our account. ALL of us believe Christ was wounded for our sins and that the chastisement for our well being, our peace, was upon Him. We ALL believe that it is by His stripes that we are healed.
ALL of us believe the Lord was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief. And that Father offered His Son as a offering for us,forsook Him to suffer and die on a Roman cross, and He died for our sins. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the world, and in Him we escape the wrath to come. He knew no sin but was made sin for us. He became a curse for us. His flesh for our flesh.

That is doctrine common to ALL Christians - those who believe in Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, Moral Influence Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory.

BUT the majority of Christians do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory.

@Van made a great observation. You take common Christian belief and say it is Penal Substitution while ignoring what distinguishes Penal Substitution from other Christian views.

 

[Van]

SNIP Except the timing of the reconciliation doesn't occur until the individual believes. SNIP

Once again, most Calvinists believe that you are lost until such time as you believe. SNIP
.

1) PSA says God has been propitiated for every individual chosen before creation, Christ dying for the specific sin penalties of those individuals only. See post #50.

2) PSA says God has reconciled every individual chosen before creation. See post #56

3) DaveXR650 says some Calvinists believe reconciliation occurs when a person believes. Not before belief when they are "regenerated" (quickened) by Irresistible Grace and their faith instilled (the gift of faith), or after God transfers them into Christ where they undergo the washing of regeneration.

Who are we to believe, the published doctrines found in article after article by well known Calvinists, or our poster? PSA is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement whether any posting Calvinist offers denial.

The biblical doctrine of Christ's sacrificial death is that His sacrifice provides the means of reconciliation such that everyone God subsequently transfers into Christ is at that time reconciled. So God is actually reconciling the world, one sinner at a time, as He transfers them into Christ. That is why we have the ministry of reconciliation. The opportunity of the lost to be chosen and reconciled exists today.

Christ was treated with the punishment of sin on the cross as the Lamb of God, such that when an individual undergoes the washing of regeneration, the removal of the individual's sin burden (what God had against the individual) is just in God's eyes as His lamb has taken those decrees and nailed them so to speak on the cross. Colossians 2:14.

 

[DaveXR650]

1) PSA says God has been propitiated for every individual chosen before creation, Christ dying for the specific sin penalties of those individuals only. See post #50.

Van. That post is just saying that what happened on the cross happened at the time of the crucifixion. This is not rocket science.

2) PSA says God has reconciled every individual chosen before creation. See post #56

That is a hyper-Calvinist belief but not a universal Calvinist teaching.

3) DaveXR650 says some Calvinists believe reconciliation occurs when a person believes. Not before belief when they are "regenerated" (quickened) by Irresistible Grace and their faith instilled (the gift of faith), or after God transfers them into Christ where they undergo the washing of regeneration.

Whether regeneration occurs before faith and whether quickening or the calling of irresistible grace is the same as regeneration is disputed among Calvinists. It is. I don't know what to tell you except maybe it's not as monolithic as you thought.

Who are we to believe, the published doctrines found in article after article by well known Calvinists, or our poster? PSA is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement whether any posting Calvinist offers denial.

John Owen won't be posting on here. Same with R.C. Sproul or Calvin. They wrote what I'm telling you. I personally don't care if you believe it. Owen spent a fair amount of time refuting hyper-Calvinism or eternal justification. R.C. Sproul said that an elect person, before he is saved - is lost. How does that fit with the baloney you are writing?

One thing you have to remember is that PSA is owned by most Baptists, including free will Baptists. You don't have to be a Calvinist to like PSA.