Penal Substitution Hypothetical question

[canadyjd]

I find it odd that a Christians seem unable to account for their faith…..

As far as salvation and the forgiveness of sins, was this accomplished when God punished Jesus instead of us, by the time He cried "it is finished", and before He died?

No.

Salvation and forgiveness of sins comes after God Holy Spirit regenerates the elect and they respond with faith in Jesus Christ, Who He is and what He did.

What He did….. was suffer in our place. He was tortured, whipped, mocked, spit upon, nailed naked on a cross….. He suffered in our place. By His strips you are healed. That is substitution, without question.

And that suffering led to His death. That death led to God demonstrate His power by resurrecting that tortured body and transforming it into a glorified body. Paul tells us these truths are of first importance. If no resurrection, we are still in our sins.

PSA is clearly taught in scripture. It occur on the cross and is applied at the great throne judgment when Jesus cloths us in His righteousness before God the Father.

Until then God has given to us indwelling God Holy Spirit as a pledge, the promise, that what Jesus has taught about the Kingdom of God and salvation by faith in Christ is true.

Scripture uses past, present, and future tenses when speaking of salvation of believers. They “are saved”, they are “being saved”, and they “will be saved”.

An account of my faith has been given. Your question has been answered directly.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

No.

Salvation and forgiveness of sins comes after God Holy Spirit regenerates the elect and they respond with faith in Jesus Christ, Who He is and what He did.

What He did….. was suffer in our place. He was tortured, whipped, mocked, spit upon, nailed naked on a cross….. He suffered in our place. By His strips you are healed. That is substitution, without question.

And that suffering led to His death. That death led to God demonstrate His power by resurrecting that tortured body and transforming it into a glorified body. Paul tells us these truths are of first importance. If no resurrection, we are still in our sins.

PSA is clearly taught in scripture. It occur on the cross and is applied at the great throne judgment when Jesus cloths us in His righteousness before God the Father.

Until then God has given to us indwelling God Holy Spirit as a pledge, the promise, that what Jesus has taught about the Kingdom of God and salvation by faith in Christ is true.

Scripture uses past, present, and future tenses when speaking of salvation of believers. They “are saved”, they are “being saved”, and they “will be saved”.

An account of my faith has been given. Your question has been answered directly.

peace to you

I am not asking when forgiveness is experienced.

I am not asking if the Resurrection demonstrated God's glory.

I am asking if Christ suffered our punishment instead of us but ascended before dying if that would make a difference, and why.

Christ would have still glorified God in ascending to heaven from the cross.

The Holy Spirit would still have been sent.


If Christ suffered our punishment instead of us but ascended before dying if that would make a difference in terms of man's forgiveness and redemption?

Can you answer that simple question?

 

[canadyjd]

I am not asking when forgiveness is experienced.

I am not asking if the Resurrection demonstrated God's glory.

I am asking if Christ suffered our punishment instead of us but ascended before dying if that would make a difference, and why.

Christ would have still glorified God in ascending to heaven from the cross.

The Holy Spirit would still have been sent.

If Christ suffered our punishment instead of us but ascended before dying if that would make a difference in terms of man's forgiveness and redemption?

Can you answer that simple question?

I already answered your “simple” question. Christ punishment was to suffer until He died.

Your question is nonsensical. It is akin to asking if God can create a rock so big He is unable to lift it.

I’ll focus on what scripture actually teaches, which is PSA. You focus on your hypotheticals and “gotcha” questions.

good night

peace to you

 

[JonC]

I already answered your “simple” question. Christ punishment was to suffer until He died.

Your question is nonsensical. It is akin to asking if God can create a rock so big He is unable to lift it.

I’ll focus on what scripture actually teaches, which is PSA. You focus on your hypotheticals and “gotcha” questions.

good night

peace to you

These are not "gotcha" questions. I am trying to understand your position (and that if a few others).

So you believe Christ had to suffer the punishment for our sins instead of us, but that was not quite enough. He also had to die physically after suffering (death would not be counted as suffering).

Why, in your view, was Christ dying physically rather than ascending to Heaven so important?

What did Christ's physical death specifically accomplish?


(The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and the Classic view differ here. But I am not sure how you work out Penal Substitution Theory.)

It looks like you are saying "Christ died simply because that was a part of His punishment" with no apparent reason.

We have to deal with this aspect of the Cross because it is obviously that Christ did not physically die instead of us (we physically die).

If you are unable to answer I understand. Many do not adequately consider their own beliefs.

 

[JonC]

I already answered your “simple” question. Christ punishment was to suffer until He died.

Your question is nonsensical. It is akin to asking if God can create a rock so big He is unable to lift it.

I’ll focus on what scripture actually teaches, which is PSA. You focus on your hypotheticals and “gotcha” questions.

good night

peace to you

Hold up.

I get your reasoning that God punished Jesus instead of us for our sins as our substitute. I disagree with that theory, but I understand the logic.

Now you are saying that God also simply punished Jesus, not instead of us as our substitute, but with a punishment we will still encounter.

And we have @DaveXR650 who insists that physical death as the wages of sin (or part of it) is God's punishment against sin. But we still die. So he has Jesus as only providing a partial atonement, leaving us to still suffer a part God's punishment. He has Christ as partially propitiating God's wrath.

Neither presents Jesus as sufficient.

If you, @canadyjd , are right then God unjustly punished Jesus by demanding a physical death that we will still suffer.

If @DaveXR650 is correct, then Jesus did not actually atone for our sins. He did in part, but we did in part as well.

 

[DaveXR650]

And we have @DaveXR650 who insists that physical death as the wages of sin (or part of it) is God's punishment against sin. But we still die. So he has Jesus as only providing a partial atonement, leaving us to still suffer a part God's punishment. He has Christ as partially propitiating God's wrath.

No, according to your reasoning here anything short of instant paradise would mean a partial atonement. This is a common flaw in Bible study - that you cannot look at an additional scripture without setting up a supposed contradiction in your mind. We do it all the time.
The simple fact is that when you have Godly men with a complete and accurate scriptural record sit down and have time to really look into the Word you will come up with a penal substitutionary atonement.

 

[canadyjd]

These are not "gotcha" questions. I am trying to understand your position (and that if a few others).

So you believe Christ had to suffer the punishment for our sins instead of us, but that was not quite enough. He also had to die physically after suffering (death would not be counted as suffering).

Why, in your view, was Christ dying physically rather than ascending to Heaven so important?

What did Christ's physical death specifically accomplish?


(The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and the Classic view differ here. But I am not sure how you work out Penal Substitution Theory.)

It looks like you are saying "Christ died simply because that was a part of His punishment" with no apparent reason.

We have to deal with this aspect of the Cross because it is obviously that Christ did not physically die instead of us (we physically die).

If you are unable to answer I understand. Many do not adequately consider their own beliefs.

I have answered your question. You obviously are not getting the answer you think I should give.

God set the plan in place. It included Christ suffering which led to His death. Why was His suffering not enough to make atonement? I never said it wasn’t enough. I’m saying His death was part of God’s plan and cannot be separated from His suffering which is what you are doing in your hypothetical. You are asking what His death accomplished in addition to atonement?

Just off hand, His death led to His resurrection. His resurrection was a demonstration.of God’s power over death. It provides proof that what Christ taught is true. It provides hope to the elect they will share in His resurrection even as we share in His suffering.

I am not surprised you do not understand PSA. Many do not understand their own beliefs. The good news is, understanding PSA is not a requirement for a right relationship with God, though I believe it deepens your relationship with our Lord to understand He suffered and died for us (which is what scripture teaches.)

Peace to you

 

[tyndale1946]

This is an open question - a hypothetical - but specifically addressing @DaveXR650 , @canadyjd and @Martin Marprelate .

The reason is I want to more fully understand what you are saying and exactly where our forgiveness was wrought.

And it is often best to explain what didn't happen in order to understand what did.


Suppose God laid our sins on Jesus, and punished our sins on Him instead of punishing us for those sins. Suppose this was accomplished on the Cross. And when Jesus cried out "it is finished" this punishment for our sins was done.

Then suppose rather than dying Christ ascended directly to the right hand of the Father.

How would this change forgiveness and salvation under Penal Substitution?

Well Jon I've been watching this discussion but didn't join in until now, so I'm not on the list, so I'm join to answer your question... Then suppose rather than dying Christ ascended directly to the right hand of the Father... Well Jon first of all that would never happen and if it did... You would be free from your sins but still stuck in the grave because you're going no where... Not only that the whole counsel of God would be a mockery and Heaven would still be filled with the three and one Godhead and the angels and any saved race from Adam wouldn't be there!

Thank God it didn't but the Son Of God died and was buried in the tomb and because he said "it is finished" he was raised from the tomb the 3rd day and just like him we shall also be raised... He took the full wrath of his Father God that we deserved... Anyone that tells me any different can go fly a kite... I go by scripture, and haven't change my belief in the over the many years I've been here... If Christ is not my substitution and didn't stand and do what I could not and appease his Father, then I'm going somewhere and I deserve it but its not where I want to go!... Praise God!... Brother Glen

 

[kyredneck]

understanding PSA is not a requirement for a right relationship with God

Agree, as are many other concepts.

[add]

This hasn’t changed:

8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6

34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10

 

[JonC]

No, according to your reasoning here anything short of instant paradise would mean a partial atonement. This is a common flaw in Bible study - that you cannot look at an additional scripture without setting up a supposed contradiction in your mind. We do it all the time.
The simple fact is that when you have Godly men with a complete and accurate scriptural record sit down and have time to really look into the Word you will come up with a penal substitutionary atonement.

Not at all.

I am saying that Jesus is either our substitute or He is not.

IF physical death is a part of God's punishment against sin, and IF Jesus took our punishment instead of us, THEN we would not die.

You are making up a theology as shifting sand - like nailing jello to a tree.

You say "death is divine justice against our sin". Then when asked why we die if Jesus took that divine justice in our place you say that death is something we would have suffered even if it wasn't divine punishment.

Now you have God saying "if you do this I will punish you with death....but it doesn't matter because you are going to die anyway".


Your solution to making Christ half Savior is to make divine judgment partially benign.


Stop and write down your recent declarations (I will this evening for you, perhaps on another thread, to keep it n one place and prevent clouding....I work nights tonight).

You have invented a very unstable theory.

 

[JonC]

I have answered your question. You obviously are not getting the answer you think I should give.

God set the plan in place. It included Christ suffering which led to His death. Why was His suffering not enough to make atonement? I never said it wasn’t enough. I’m saying His death was part of God’s plan and cannot be separated from His suffering which is what you are doing in your hypothetical. You are asking what His death accomplished in addition to atonement?

Just off hand, His death led to His resurrection. His resurrection was a demonstration.of God’s power over death. It provides proof that what Christ taught is true. It provides hope to the elect they will share in His resurrection even as we share in His suffering.

I am not surprised you do not understand PSA. Many do not understand their own beliefs. The good news is, understanding PSA is not a requirement for a right relationship with God, though I believe it deepens your relationship with our Lord to understand He suffered and died for us (which is what scripture teaches.)

Peace to you

I was never looking for specific answers. I was merely looking for answers to those questions.

But you are wrong. The answers that I did get are pretty much what I expected to receive.

You are even more wrong when you assume that I, and those who disagree with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, do not understand that theory.

You forget that I have held it, defended it, for most of my adult life. Even 20 years ago on this forum to the applaud if the choir.

The reason I reject the theory is not for a lack of understanding. It is very simplistic and worldly in how it works out. The reason I reject it is that it is unbiblical.

People do not need to accept or reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement to be saved. You are correct. The problem, however, is that Penal Substitution Theory obscures and replaces what is written in God's Word.

 

[JonC]

@canadyjd

I do need to admit, however, that your form of Penal Substitution Theory is at least more biblical than @Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 's form on the point of death as a wage.

What you have demonstrated is that Jesus did not have to die for our sins (physical death) but rather take upon Himself the punishment that we would experience at Judgment or a punishment for what we would experience at Judgment.

Martin and Dave have weakened the theory by trying to make it elastic.

So IF I still held the theory I'd choose your form of it over theirs.

 

[canadyjd]

@canadyjd

I do need to admit, however, that your form of Penal Substitution Theory is at least more biblical than @Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 's form on the point of death as a wage.

What you have demonstrated is that Jesus did not have to die for our sins (physical death) but rather take upon Himself the punishment that we would experience at Judgment or a punishment for what we would experience at Judgment.

Martin and Dave have weakened the theory by trying to make it elastic.

So IF I still held the theory I'd choose your form of it over theirs.

Just to be clear, I reject they notion that Jesus did not have to die for our sins. That was always God’s plan and scripture specifically states Jesus died for our sins, so it was necessary.

I may disagree with some on whether death is part of the “punishment” of God for sin, or rather the consequence of sin. I hold the latter, but I am certainly willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

That is why I started another thread to address that question.

peace to you

 

[DaveXR650]

IF physical death is a part of God's punishment against sin, and IF Jesus took our punishment instead of us, THEN we would not die.

Can you cite anyone who has ever used this besides you? I really don't understand your hangup with this.

You say "death is divine justice against our sin". Then when asked why we die if Jesus took that divine justice in our place you say that death is something we would have suffered even if it wasn't divine punishment.

Now you have God saying "if you do this I will punish you with death....but it doesn't matter because you are going to die anyway".

It is appointed unto man once to die and after that, judgement. Not that "It's a natural course of events unrelated to the fall, that all will die". Whether you like it or not it is scriptural. But look. Without God's mercy we would consider ourselves lucky if He just killed us and stopped our wretched, sinful existence. Instead, we are told we will suffer physical death and then be judged and separated consciously from God for all eternity. We are also told that our natural condition is spiritual death which is far worse than the physical prospect of death. But God provided a way out of this for us and we can have spiritual renewal, fellowship with God that starts as soon as we believe, and the promise of eternal life with God. But we are not told that we will avoid physical death and you have no right to make that part of the determinate criteria as to whether this redemption is sufficient.

You are on some kind of mission with this hypothetical thread where you are trying to do something with the terminology of "death" in God's pronouncement of judgment at the fall of man and link it somehow with an imagined deficiency in penal substitution. No one else is doing this, no one follows you. It does not make any sense.

Stop and write down your recent declarations (I will this evening for you, perhaps on another thread, to keep it n one place and prevent clouding....I work nights tonight).

Go ahead and do that and then I will provide where you can look in scripture and also in Owen's work to match what I have said. Maybe that will help you.

 

[DaveXR650]

People do not need to accept or reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement to be saved. You are correct. The problem, however, is that Penal Substitution Theory obscures and replaces what is written in God's Word.

You certainly don't have to understand it to be saved. But for a person who has an extensive understanding - to reject it and consider it stupid I think they would be in trouble. Owen did, as well as most preachers who go into discussion of the atonement. There is a huge difference between an early church father who is worried about other issues like defending the Trinity or even just the divinity of Christ and who never wrote anything on the atonement and someone who now with a complete and accurate translation of scripture deliberately opposes it with full knowledge and will.

 

[JonC]

You certainly don't have to understand it to be saved. But for a person who has an extensive understanding - to reject it and consider it stupid I think they would be in trouble. Owen did, as well as most preachers who go into discussion of the atonement. There is a huge difference between an early church father who is worried about other issues like defending the Trinity or even just the divinity of Christ and who never wrote anything on the atonement and someone who now with a complete and accurate translation of scripture deliberately opposes it with full knowledge and will.

I do understand and reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

I agree that we will be judged on these things because we both teach them.

I also agree that one of us will face a type of condemnation (not a loss of salvation) for what we teach.

 

[37818]

I agree that the Resurrection would not have occurred. And we are talking hypothetically.

As far as salvation, though, had Jesus suffered our punishment instead of us and then ascended without physically dying, would that change Penal Substitution itself?

Would we still be forgiven of our sins?

1 Corinthians 15:17, ". . . And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. . . ." would not be the case. So instead of the resurrection, it would be the trasfiguration to immortality and ascension of Christ in it's place.

 

[JonC]

1 Corinthians 15:17, ". . . And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. . . ." would not be the case. So instead of the resurrection, it would be the trasfiguration to immortality and ascension of Christ in it's place.

I agree. Our hope would be in the ascension rather than the resurrection. We would still be saved exactly the same way. We would be forgiven exactly the same way (Christ being punished instead of us).

This means that Penal Substitution Theory does not require that Christ die for our sins, only that He be punished instead of us.

That is a major difference between the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and Classic Christianity.

The Classic Christian faith depends on Christ suffering and dying as a representative substitute (not instead of us but for us, experiencing a type of death that we will endure) and it's faith is in the Resurrection.

 

[37818]

This means that Penal Substitution Theory does not require that Christ die for our sins, only that He be punished instead of us.

How? The received payment is still in full per and before John 19:28, ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . ." τετελεσται tetelestai.

 

[JonC]

How? The received payment is still in full per and before John 19:28, ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . ." τετελεσται

You tell me. Was Jesus alive in John 19:28, when all things were accomplished, or had Jesus already died?

If all things were accomplished before Jesus died then how did His death accomplish our redemption?

The answer is, per that theory, it didn't. Christ suffered up to John 19:28 for our sins, in our stead, to redeem us.

Had Christ not died but ascended to heaven from the cross nothing would be different except the ascension would replace the resurrection.