Featured Penal Substitution Hypothetical question

That is what I was saying as well (not what I believe but what Penal Substitution Theory ultimately means).

Penal Substitution Theory's necessary conclusion is that Christ had to suffer, experience a type of death as separation, for our sins. But Christ did not have to actually die (physically) for our sins.

And the Roman cross was not necessary because His suffering and death was ultimately an act of God rather than the World. He needed to die on a tree as prophesized, but the actual punishment was wrought by God and experienced in our stead.

That is a big difference in atonement views.

 

You think it is silly, but it isn't.

@37818 is absolutely correct.

If Christ suffered our punishment instead of us and we die physically then physical death is not a part of God's judgment against sin.

That means that Jesus' death is meaningless insofar as redemption is concern. It was merely an exit. Were Christ to have ascended to God before dying Penal Substitution Theory would be exactly the same.

Since you believe it silly, please tell us (in your own words) exactly what Christ's physical death - a death that we will also suffer - accomplished in terms of forgiving our sins.

 

I understand as we have had this discussion before and you were kind enough to explain your position.

I simply disagree (do we will not agree on this point).

I believe that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, and that the second death is the lake of fire.

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position.

The way I understand your words is that there is no specific reason for Christ to have died except that this was God's plan (His death was not in our place as we die, but was required of God and is something to accept as true).

My point is that Penal Substitution itself does not depend on Christ dying. Christ, according to that theory, propitiated God's anger towards us by experiencing that anger instead of us experiencing that wrath.

I am in no way claiming that you do not believe Christ had to die. But I am saying that His death is not necessary strictly under the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

I do not assume the Penal Substitution Theory to constitute your entire belief system or faith.


Here are a few things to consider:

1. God presents with two types of death. One is physical death which is appointed all men followed by the judgment. The other is the lake of fire " the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death").

Christ suffered a physical death. Christ did not suffer the second death. He was not cast into the Lake of Fire.

Penal Substitution theorists hold there is another type of death - typically a separation or break in fellowship with God - that Adam experienced in the Garden and Christ experienced in the Cross. Viewing death this way is a mistake.

In Genesis Adam was cast out of the Garden, and the Garden was a unique place where Adam enjoyed fellowship with God. BUT Adam was not originally in the Garden, originally in that state of fellowship, and when he was cast out he was returned from whence he had been taken. This casting out from the Garden was not the first time Adam was in that situation.

Even if Christ experienced a separation from God (an idea I reject) the second death is not defined as separation. It includes separation, but it is a specific place - a place prepared for Satan and his demons.

2. Christ experiencing death cannot, under Penal Substitution Theory, be God's punishment for our sins that we would suffer because we experience death and Christ did not experience the second death. The best it actually does is say Christ experienced something that God accepted in place of the punishment we would have suffered (satisfaction, not substitution).

The issue remains that we still suffer the wages of sin (death). If this is even a part of our punishment for sin by God then God is unjust to require it twice (once from us, once from Christ).

3. We are still left with the fact that Penal Substitution Theory has no actual use for the Cross (specifically) or for Christ's death. People affirm Christ had to die, but their reason is "mystery", or as you said
"God is allowed to ask for any conditions or acts in addition that he wants and he is allowed to demand ongoing obedience or holiness as he chooses."

The reason is that is what God wanted, not that Christ's death actually redeems man in any significant way. God just decided His Christ must die.


That is what I mean when I say that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement has no use for the Cross or for Christ's death. Had God decided that Christ should suffer by being stoned and then ascend without dying the Penal Substitution Theory would not be affected at all.

Classic Christianity, however, depends on Christ dying on a Roman cross. Christ had to die in order for man to be saved. Not because of some mystery in God's plan.


Another difference is how you view the sacrifice system. You assume it was as ANE pagan sacrifices. It was not. Sacrifices were not made, under the Old Covenant, on an altar. Priests were not punishing animals. Sins were not forgiven. The importance was in the shedding of blood which was to cleanse. It was a preparation for the people (symbolically, foreshadowing the cross) which covered sins (looking to actual forgiveness) for God to "dwell with His people'.

Penal Substitution Theory makes assumptions and reads even into the levitical system.

 

I do not understand what it is you want me to address (that I haven't). Reply specifically with what you were asking.

I can assure you that any thing you view as "floundering" is a misunderstanding on your part, perhaps due to a lack of articulation on mine.

Please reply with what you didn't understand if my position and I will try to do better in explaining it.

Nothing, however, will change the fact that Penal Substitution Theory does not necessitate Christ's death or the Cross except to say that was what God wanted. Technically that is in addition to the theory.

Ultimately the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement bases forgiveness in the Father punishing our sins laid on Christ. The Cross and Christ's death is merely an addition that Penal Substitution theorists accept.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is completely unbiblical. Additions Penal Substitution theorists hold may or may not be.

You prove this with your posts, although for now I do not think you have yet realized this fact. It would be better for you to simply accept Scripture - not as supporting Penal Substitution Theory but as stating God's work of redemption.

 

I am not asking to be convinced, nor am I trying to convince.

From your own post I understand you to say that Penal Substitution Theory would not be affected if Christ had not died provided that God had not intended Christ's death.

The only reason you provide for relating Christ's death to atoning for our sins is mystery. The only reason you give for believing that Christ died for our sins is that Scripture says He did.

Per your posts, our forgiveness is not based on Christ's death or resurrection but on Christ taking God's punishment for our sins instead of us.

That confirms what I have been saying. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does not technically necessitate the Cross or Christ's death in order for man to be forgiven. It depends on God punishing sinful actions in order to "forgive" those sinful actions.

Christ's death is meaningless (it has no effective meaning) within your theory.

That is one reason traditional Christianity has historically viewed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as a heresy. Where traditional Christian faith is literally based on Christ, Penal Substitution Theory is based on God punishing sins in order to forgive those sins (it attempts to approach redemption through divine judgment, circumventing Christ except as an object of that judgment).

 

Yes. Your post is one reference

Why did Christ have to die? You say it is a mystery, just something that Scripture says. But you are unable to relate that to redemption. You stated that it was simply determined by God that He should die.

A better argument on your point would have been to relate that to obedience, but still Christ's death would be meaningless (if God had not required it Penal Substitution Theory would not be affected at all).


The reason it is important is traditional Christian faith views Christ's death as essential because this is the bondage that we suffer under the power of Satan. Christ would have to suffer the same fate, underserved, to reconcile man and God (to actually be the Son of Man).

But Penal Substitution Theory itself does not depend on Christ's death except that it was required to occur.

I understand why you do not believe it important, but that is because you are a Penal Substitution theorist. It is vitally important to traditional Christian faith because it is how we are saved.

It demonstrates a difference.

 

I know it is new to you. That is because you look to Genesis 3 to support your theory rather than allowing Scripture to dictate your belief.

It is relative to this discussion because Genesis 3 is relative to this discussion. It is not by accident that we are told twice in Genesis that the Garden was not Adam's original home. It is essential. It matters.

Genesis 2:7–8 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

Genesis 3:22–23. Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

 

You are wrong. I have repeatedly objected to the theory that God punished sins to forgive those sins. I stated that that is not forgiveness. I already addressed God being just and justifier of sinners.

I have also, repeatedly, provided you with a list of several theologians (many Baptist scholars) who stated that Penal Substitution Theory is a heresy.

I even liked the post the last time you tried this distraction. I have to believe that you are starting to see the issue I am speaking of and simply trying to cloud the discussion.

So to keep it short and remove that tactic, it does not matter what others believe of Penal Substitution Theory. It matters what Scripture says.

If Christ did not die (if God did not somehow include this as a satisfaction for punishment) then Penal Substitution Theory would not change.

God would have forgiven us in the same way - by transferring our sinful actions into Christ and punishing those actions to forgive those actions.

Penal Substitution Theory itself has nothing to do with Christ's actual death (His physical death). It really does not have to do with separation either (the wicked will be separated from God, but that is only a part of the second death).

As long as God was satisfied in the punishment Penal Substitution Theory would stand. Had God decided to punish Jesus with fire ants and was able to accept that as punishment enough Penal Substitution Theory would not change.

 

@DaveXR650

We can settle this very simply.

I believe (and traditional Christian faith holds) that Christ had to die physically under the bondage of sin and death, under the power of Satan, as we will die (not instead of us) in order to free us from its bonds by reconciling mankind and God (solidarity) in order to become the Second Adam so that those who are made new creations in Him would have life. This is similar to the way natural man is related to Adam. This had to be on a Roman cross because the Roman Empire was the symbol of the World, and was the government that Israel viewed as it's oppressor (Rome represented Satan's power).

Why do you believe Jesus had to physically die on a Roman cross?



The reason I keep this up is we can learn from one another.

These discussions have solidified my position. Some of the things that have been brought up I had not considered. I am more opposed to Penal Substitution Theory than I were when we started.

You have learned from me as well....at least that the Garden was not Adam's original home and when cast from the Garden he was returned from where he had been taken.

So the discussion has not been useless.