Penal Substitution Gospel

[JonC]

Jesus died a violent, substitutionary death to be a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of Jews and Gentiles. by this death, Jesus took upon himself God's righteous judgment and wrath against the sins of those for whom he died. By dying as their penal substitute, Jesus paid the penalty for their sins, and he therefore both propitiated God's wrath against their sins and expiated their sins so that the sins of the Jews and Gentiles would be forgiven and so that they would be justified by faith, forgiven of their sins, reconciled to God, reconciled to each other, participate in the future resurrection and saved from God's wrath. [An extract from Jarvis J. Williams, from his essay Violent Atonement : The Foundation Of Paul's Soteriology In Romans.]

We all know people believe in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement while others reject it.

I am not sure exactly why you and @Piper always bring up Penal Substitution theorists as proof that the theory is correct. It doesn't make sense.

If you want to prove the Penal Substitution Theory correct then you need to provide Scripture saying that God was punishing Jesus instead of us, that Jesus died under God's wrath, and the like.

But you can't, so you point to men who held or holds the Theory as "proof".

That is why @Piper and @Martin Marprelate get on the tangent about people who have been carried away by philosophy (like Boyd).

Nobody here pointed to those men as examples of truth.

I even stated that Boyd is carried away by philosophy. Just like Penal Substitution theorists have been mislead by vain philosophy.

The proof is here on the BB. Those of us arguing against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement rely on Scripture (on what is written in God's Word). You, @Piper , and @Martin Marprelate have constantly relied on men who hold the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement to prove the theory correct.

Your standard is too subjective to be considered legitimate.

 

[JonC]

You are wrong regarding both of them. Emerson and Stamps wrote an article entitled Baptist Catholicity And Penal Substitutionary Atonement. In it they state :"...we feel that here especially they [Steve Harmon and Curtis Freeman --Rip] are the ones who have missed the mark, not those who affirm penal substitutionary atonement."

Probably. I just glanced quickly because @DaveXR650 was unaware of any Baptists in the ministry that rejected Penal Substitution Theory.

The ones I knew of off hand that hold to Scripture were SBC theologians.

I added the others off a quick search.

The point was that Baptists have never held one theory of Atonement. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is most popular with Protestant Baptists, but the topic has always been a matter of debate (which is why, until recently, the SBC remained inclusive and left it to conscious).

Like always, you pick up on the outliers and here, my mistake. But you ignore the rest.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

There can be little doubt that Jesus viewed his death as a representative sacrifice for "the many." Not only is His thought saturated in Isa. 53 (which is a doctrine of representative suffering), but His words over the cup -- indeed, the whole narrative of the Last Supper -- almost demand to be interpreted in terms of a sacrifice in whose virtue His followers can share. The idea of substitution which is prominent in Isa. 53 appears in the ransom saying. And it requires only a little reading between the lines to find in the "cup" saying, the story of the Agony, and the cry of dereliction, evidence that Christ's sufferings were what, for lack of a better word, we can only call "penal."
[Taken from A. M. Hunter, The Words And Works Of Jesus p.100]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I had not intended to post here again so soon (if ever) and I shall not be responding to replies to this post. However, I feel the need to respond to certain inaccuracies (to use no stronger word) that have been made recently.

That is why @Piper and @Martin Marprelate get on the tangent about people who have been carried away by philosophy (like Boyd).

Nobody here pointed to those men as examples of truth.

I have listed several serious Baptist theologians who truly reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement..........
I mentioned Greg Boyd (Yale Divinity School, Princeton Theological Seminary). He is Baptist and rejects the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement........... Steve Chalke is a Baptist minister and writer who rejects the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

That JonC regards Boyd and Chalke as 'serious Baptist theologians' speaks volumes. No one would have mentioned them had he not brought the names up.

If you want to prove the Penal Substitution Theory correct then you need to provide Scripture saying that God was punishing Jesus instead of us, that Jesus died under God's wrath, and the like.

Now the problem here is that @JonC has his own 'penal substitution theory' which means whatever he wants it to mean.
God did not punish the Lord Jesus; He punished sin, and our Lord was the sin-bearer (! Peter 2:24 etc.) Nor did He die under God's wrath. At the ninth hour, the Lord Jesus declared, "It is finished!" and it was, save for the dismissing of His Spirit which happened almost immediately. His act of propitiation was over; the atonement for His people was achieved, and the price of their redemption (Psalms 49:7-8; 1 Peter 1:18-19) was paid.
I have given the definition of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution so many times that I'm sick of it, but here it is again since @JonC seems to have forgotten it. It is not my definition, so no one can accuse me of having made it up; it is that given in the book Pierced for our Transgressions.' "That God gave 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.

Those of us arguing against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement rely on Scripture (on what is written in God's Word). You, @Piper , and @Martin Marprelate have constantly relied on men who hold the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement to prove the theory correct.

The truth is that @JonC and others have constantly pointed to various church fathers to claim (wrongly) validity for their theories.

The truth of Penal Substitution is found all over the Bible. However, I shall restrict myself to a few verses from Isaiah 53 in the interests of time and space.

First, that our Lord suffered in our place: 'But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.' It was not for His own sins, but for ours that He suffered, and by that suffering we have peace with God.

Second, that our sins were laid upon Him. 'We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one of us, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him [or 'caused to land on Him'] the iniquity of us all.' Note who it is that laid our sins upon the Lord Jesus.

Thirdly, that it was none other than God Himself who afflicted the Lord Jesus with all these punishments. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' It will not do to say that wicked men killed the Lord Jesus. The verse very clearly says that it was Yahweh Himself. Moreover, our Lord Himself says in John 10:18, "No one takes My life from Me [What? Not Herod, Pilate, the chief priests or whoever? No!], but I lay it down of Myself." It is all of God, Father, Son and Spirit, from first to last.

 

[JonC]

I had not intended to post here again so soon (if ever) and I shall not be responding to replies to this post. However, I feel the need to respond to certain inaccuracies (to use no stronger word) that have been made recently.

That JonC regards Boyd and Chalke as 'serious Baptist theologians' speaks volumes. No one would have mentioned them had he not brought the names up.

Now the problem here is that @JonC has his own 'penal substitution theory' which means whatever he wants it to mean.
God did not punish the Lord Jesus; He punished sin, and our Lord was the sin-bearer (! Peter 2:24 etc.) Nor did He die under God's wrath. At the ninth hour, the Lord Jesus declared, "It is finished!" and it was, save for the dismissing of His Spirit which happened almost immediately. His act of propitiation was over; the atonement for His people was achieved, and the price of their redemption (Psalms 49:7-8; 1 Peter 1:18-19) was paid.
I have given the definition of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution so many times that I'm sick of it, but here it is again since @JonC seems to have forgotten it. It is not my definition, so no one can accuse me of having made it up; it is that given in the book Pierced for our Transgressions.' "That God gave 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.

The truth is that @JonC and others have constantly pointed to various church fathers to claim (wrongly) validity for their theories.

The truth of Penal Substitution is found all over the Bible. However, I shall restrict myself to a few verses from Isaiah 53 in the interests of time and space.

First, that our Lord suffered in our place: 'But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.' It was not for His own sins, but for ours that He suffered, and by that suffering we have peace with God.

Second, that our sins were laid upon Him. 'We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one of us, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him [or 'caused to land on Him'] the iniquity of us all.' Note who it is that laid our sins upon the Lord Jesus.

Thirdly, that it was none other than God Himself who afflicted the Lord Jesus with all these punishments. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' It will not do to say that wicked men killed the Lord Jesus. The verse very clearly says that it was Yahweh Himself. Moreover, our Lord Himself says in John 10:18, "No one takes My life from Me [What? Not Herod, Pilate, the chief priests or whoever? No!], but I lay it down of Myself." It is all of God, Father, Son and Spirit, from first to last.

You make several mistakes here.

I said Boyd is Baptist (he holds the Baptist distinctives). I said that He was educated at Yale Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary. I said that he is a theologian. I said he is a scholar.

Those are facts.

But I also said that Boyd has been carried into philosophy. I said that I believe he is wrong.

You confuse scholarship with holding a Reformed tradition.


Look at what you do here. You are arguing against Boyd. You are arguing against open theism.

But nobody here has advocated Boyd's theology or open theism. You are like a reed blown by the wind.

Open Theism is a 4th Century philosophy applied to divine omniscience. It is an example of men being carried away by vain philosophy. BUT open theism itself does not alter the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a philosophy about what is knowable.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a 16th Century philosophy which not only alters the biblical description of God but also is a corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Penal Substitution has the potential to damn a soul by becoming an obstacle to the gospel while Open Theology itself does not.

Both are false. But nobody is advocating Boyd's philosophy.

 

[JonC]

First, that our Lord suffered in our place: 'But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.' It was not for His own sins, but for ours that He suffered, and by that suffering we have peace with God.

Second, that our sins were laid upon Him. 'We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one of us, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him [or 'caused to land on Him'] the iniquity of us all.' Note who it is that laid our sins upon the Lord Jesus.

Thirdly, that it was none other than God Himself who afflicted the Lord Jesus with all these punishments. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' It will not do to say that wicked men killed the Lord Jesus. The verse very clearly says that it was Yahweh Himself. Moreover, our Lord Himself says in John 10:18, "No one takes My life from Me [What? Not Herod, Pilate, the chief priests or whoever? No!], but I lay it down of Myself." It is all of God, Father, Son and Spirit, from first to last.

To your second point (ignoring Boyd as, again, nobody here is advocating Boyd):

I agree that Christ was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.'

I agree it was not for His own sins, but for ours that He suffered, and by that suffering we have peace with God. I agree that our sins were laid upon Him.

I agree that we all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one of us, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'

I agree that it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'

I agree that no one takes Jesus' life but He lay it down Himself.

I do not agree with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement that says God punished Christ (or our sins laid on Christ) instead of punishing us

The reason is that not in the Bible. It is a 16th century philosophy you read into Scripture.

 

[Piper]

We all know people believe in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement while others reject it.

I am not sure exactly why you and @Piper always bring up Penal Substitution theorists as proof that the theory is correct. It doesn't make sense.

If you want to prove the Penal Substitution Theory correct then you need to provide Scripture saying that God was punishing Jesus instead of us, that Jesus died under God's wrath, and the like.

But you can't, so you point to men who held or holds the Theory as "proof".

That is why @Piper and @Martin Marprelate get on the tangent about people who have been carried away by philosophy (like Boyd).

Nobody here pointed to those men as examples of truth.

I even stated that Boyd is carried away by philosophy. Just like Penal Substitution theorists have been mislead by vain philosophy.

The proof is here on the BB. Those of us arguing against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement rely on Scripture (on what is written in God's Word). You, @Piper , and @Martin Marprelate have constantly relied on men who hold the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement to prove the theory correct.

Your standard is too subjective to be considered legitimate.

Because t don't have the time to lay out all of the arguments. Others have done a much better job, and I follow and agree with their defense, so I link to it. Most of my posts are 1-2 minutes in typing, in between refreshing reports at work.

 

[37818]

The Biblical Penal Substitution on the cross was brief. Only Matthew and Mark cite Psalms 22:1. In Luke 23:46 and before the event in John 19:28 it was already completed. And in none of the accounts did Christ receive the anger or wrath from God the Father.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Penal Substitution has the potential to damn a soul

You have crossed the line. I feel like I should make a citizen's arrest --as if that could be a thing in Christian circles. How in the world could you say such sinful things? If your elders could hear you say such things --would they be okay with it? There are two possibilities "Sure, what JonC has said is fine with us." That would mean your local assembly is outside the bounds. Or, your elders could give you church discipline. Not many churches do that these days unfortunately.

 

[Piper]

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a 16th Century philosophy which not only alters the biblical description of God but also is a corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Penal Substitution has the potential to damn a soul by becoming an obstacle to the gospel while Open Theology itself does not.

Both are false. But nobody is advocating Boyd's philosophy.

I also believe you have gone too far in your desire to promote your view that was found lacking by most of the Reformers.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Thread closed.

Too much personality vs. personality.

I'm so sick of this that I could scream.


and added by the Admin
DO NOT START A NEW THREAD FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS