Featured Penal Substitution Gospel

But you have not expressed any actual penal substitution.

And you have not provided any actual support that Christ's death did not play a part in this atonement.

 

Yes. What you have described is definitely not penal substitution.

You may hold beliefs you cannot articulate, but I can only go off what you have posted.

It is very unorthodox, but still interesting. Just not penal substitution.

 

Well.... chronological order was also not important (unless it was to explain what had occurred). We like to read Scripture as if it were written like a reporter reporting events today. But that's us.

 

Yes, of course. Some teachings are repeated dnd others are not.

 

I understand.

Sometimes people like to make up words, or meanings of words, to fit into a group or to give their ideas meaning.

But this is not necessary.

Penal Substitution has a very specific meaning. There are various takes on the theory, but it has a common basic meaning.

Here is the dictionary meaning of penal substitution - a development of the satisfaction theory of the atonement introduced by the Protestant reformers and prevalent in Lutheran and Reformed orthodoxy that holds that Christ reconciled man to God by participating in human life to the extent of taking on himself without corruption the status of sinner and bearing in his soul the penal torment and desolation (Websters).


That is, of course, a secular definition.

In theology it carries that meaning but includes that penal torment being inflected by God instead of God inflicting it on us.

Some go as far as saying God separated from Christ as a part of this torment.

You do not, from your comments, affirm penal substitution (which is a good thing). You hold an extraordinary unorthodox view (which could be a bad thing, but not necessarily).

So the question is exactly why you chose the term "Penal Substitution" to describe your view if you do reject the actual definitions of Penal Substitution.

 

True.

But this does not fall into that category.

I'm not talking about what you say you believe.

I am talking about penal substitution (a belief I held for most of my life).

You reject penal substitution, but call your view (which I'm sure I don't fully get) "penal substitution".

My question is why?

What if I call my view "penal substitution" and add to the count?

It wouldn't be your "penal substitution". It wouldn't be the actual definition of "penal substitution".

Don't you get how complicated discussion would be if we treated these historic theories so subjectively?

 

When asked you offered a couple of verses as meaning "penal substitution" (verses that do not actually state the teaching of penal substitution) and you were unable to confirm that you believed the definition of penal substitution.

If you cannot confirm a belief in penal substitution then it is not logical to assume you actually hold it as true, even if you like the term.

 

@37818

For your belief to be penal substitution you would have to add to Scripture. You would have to add that God punished our sins laid on Jesus instead of punishing us as a means of forgiving us. You would have to change Christ dying for our sins by adding "instead of us".

I may not agree with your interpretation of Scripture, but I do not get the impression that you are willing to add to God's Word.

 

What is added? With you or penal substitution?

Penal Substitution adds that God punished our sins laid on Jesus instead of punishing us as a means of forgiving us and that Christ dying for our sins by adding "instead of us".

You seem to think that the soul that sins does not have to die (that we sin but don't die).

Christ shared in our death, the consequences of our sin. He did not die because of His sin. We die because of our sin (the soul that sins must die....Christ did not have to die
...we do).