Penal Substitution Hypothetical question

[JonC]

I am in agreement with the statement above but I believe there is a necessity to add that Christ was under the bondage of sin and death because he was taking our sin on himself and dying in our stead. It doesn't make the theory wrong or damage it in any way but it is the result of further study of scripture. Early church fathers seemed to be on track to go in that direction judging from some of the things they said. In addition there is no means of reconciling spelled out in your theory. In fact, that brings up a very important point. Why is there a need of "reconciliation" at all. It is because of man's sin and nothing explains it like PSA. The solidarity needed is provided by the fact that Christ was fully man and thus could completely identify with us and act as our head as the second Adam. There are all kinds of prophesies fulfilled by the fact that Jesus died on a cross and I also have no problem agreeing with the symbolism of Rome above.

I'm not sure I agree with that but I don't wish to go there at this time.

There is a problem with your statement.

You posted " I believe there is a necessity to add that Christ was under the bondage of sin and death because he was taking our sin on himself and dying in our stead", but at the same time you acknowledge that you do not believe Jesus died (physically) instead of us (you seem to, at least, acknowledge that we still die physically).

This means that whatever it is you believe Jesus suffered instead of us, it was not physical death.

I understand that you believe His death necessary. But your posts indicate not technically necessary in a penal substitution manner. Instead you shift to satisfaction. But even here you are unable to explain why Jesus had to die (except God demanded it).

As far as Genesis 2:7-8 and 3:22-23 goes, you misworded your reply. You did not, per your confession, know that Adam was created then put in the Garden, or that Adam was returned from whence he came. Now you at least know that Scripture says this is what occurred. You should have said that you have not decided if you will accept those passages yet, as you have not considered exactly what impact that would have on your theory. It has a severe effect, BTW.

I am surprised you have not abandoned the discussion before now. There are many things you need to consider. That is never fun.

 

[canadyjd]

JonC, you are separating Christ’s sufferings from His death and claiming PSA “should”, I guess, maintain His death was not necessary for PSA to be true. Further, it seems you are making the statement that if Christ’s death was necessary and was part of God’s punishment, then we wouldn’t die physically. Therefore, since everyone dies, PSA must not be true.

As I have stated before, and others as well, PSA does not separate Christ’s death from His suffering. Nor do we separate His virgin birth from His suffering. Nor do we separate His miracles from His suffering.

The PSA of Jesus is a package deal. The entirety of His life, suffering, death and resurrection is the plan God put into place to provide PSA for His elect.

Attempting to separate various parts aspects of His life, death, resurrection, in order to undermine His purpose (He came to save that which was lost) is just stupid, silly and unbiblical

peace to you

 

[JonC]

JonC, you are separating Christ’s sufferings from His death and claiming PSA “should”, I guess, maintain His death was not necessary for PSA to be true. Further, it seems you are making the statement that if Christ’s death was necessary and was part of God’s punishment, then we wouldn’t die physically. Therefore, since everyone dies, PSA must not be true.

As I have stated before, and others as well, PSA does not separate Christ’s death from His suffering. Nor do we separate His virgin birth from His suffering. Nor do we separate His miracles from His suffering.

The PSA of Jesus is a package deal. The entirety of His life, suffering, death and resurrection is the plan God put into place to provide PSA for His elect.

Attempting to separate various parts aspects of His life, death, resurrection, in order to undermine His purpose (He came to save that which was lost) is just stupid, silly and unbiblical

peace to you

You misunderstand.

I am not separating Christ's suffering from His death at all. I am not separating the Incarnation from His death either.

Penal Substitution Theory does, however, as it holds that Christ suffered God's punishment instead of us.

Christ's death is meaningless under Penal Substitution Theory (or at best the theory holds that Christ's death is a mystery we cannot know....just a part of a satisfactory punishment). But then that is breaking down Penal Substitution Theory into a type of Satisfaction Theory.

That said, we can talk about these aspects of Christ. It is not unbiblical as Paul (and Jesus) did it.


You are floundering here.

The reason is that Penal Substitution Theory does not need the cross or Christ's death. Whatever punishment satisfied God is good enough. It assumes it has to be the cross, but only because that is what occurred.


On the other hand traditional Christian faith holds that the reason for the Cross and the reason for Christ's death is specifically revealed in God's Word.

The reason it remains a mystery in your theology is that your theory hides what is revealed in Scripture. It says "no, that can't be right because of the Law" and redefines what is written.

 

[canadyjd]

You misunderstand.

I am not separating Christ's suffering from His death at all. I am not separating the Incarnation from His death either.

Penal Substitution Theory does, however, as it holds that Christ suffered God's punishment instead of us.

Christ's death is meaningless under Penal Substitution Theory (or at best the theory holds that Christ's death is a mystery we cannot know....just a part of a satisfactory punishment). But then that is breaking down Penal Substitution Theory into a type of Satisfaction Theory.

That said, we can talk about these aspects of Christ. It is not unbiblical as Paul (and Jesus) did it.


You are floundering here.

The reason is that Penal Substitution Theory does not need the cross or Christ's death. Whatever punishment satisfied God is good enough. It assumes it has to be the cross, but only because that is what occurred.


On the other hand traditional Christian faith holds that the reason for the Cross and the reason for Christ's death is specifically revealed in God's Word.

The reason it remains a mystery in your theology is that your theory hides what is revealed in Scripture. It says "no, that can't be right because of the Law" and redefines what is written.

Looks like we disagree on what I believe. Since I know better than you what I believe, and what I believe is based on scripture, and I believe PSA is clearly taught in scripture and PSA does not separate Christ’s suffering from His death….

…. we have come to the point where we are talking past each other. You are claiming I believe things I do not, even after my explaining in detail why I do not.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Looks like we disagree on what I believe. Since I know better than you what I believe, and what I believe is based on scripture, and I believe PSA is clearly taught in scripture and PSA does not separate Christ’s suffering from His death….

…. we have come to the point where we are talking past each other. You are claiming I believe things I do not, even after my explaining in detail why I do not.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

I am not claiming you believe anything. I was referring to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God punished our sins laid on Christ. This was suffered by Christ in our place (instead of us).

Physical death is not something Christ suffered instead of us (obviously). So to indicate it was a part of the punishment goes from penal substitution instead of us to satisfaction (what Christ suffered was not what we would suffer but was a satisfactory punishment in our place....that is, RCC substitution). The difference is that this was a punishment intended for our sins.

Now, I grant you can believe Penal Substitution Theory without understanding that theory. Many do. I have talked to several who affirm Penal Substitution yet reject the idea that Christ experienced a punishment from God at all.


So explain to me - exactly why did Jesus have to experience physical death?

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate brought up another weakness of the theory.

He argued that God did not punish Jesus but instead punished our sins that were laid on Him.

If this is true then God was unjust, punishing our sins with a lighter sentence than was deserved (being whipped, ridiculed, and crucified is less than the Second death and was not unique to Christ).

The way Penal Substitution Theory tries to reason away this issue is by saying that God was taking this punishment, innocent of any sin.

But this depends on Christ actually being punished.


It is a type legalistic voodoo. Actions being kain on another and punished, not the person suffering but the actions.

 

[canadyjd]

I am not claiming you believe anything. I was referring to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God punished our sins laid on Christ. This was suffered by Christ in our place (instead of us).

Physical death is not something Christ suffered instead of us (obviously). So to indicate it was a part of the punishment goes from penal substitution instead of us to satisfaction (what Christ suffered was not what we would suffer but was a satisfactory punishment in our place....that is, RCC substitution). The difference is that this was a punishment intended for our sins.

Now, I grant you can believe Penal Substitution Theory without understanding that theory. Many do. I have talked to several who affirm Penal Substitution yet reject the idea that Christ experienced a punishment from God at all.


So explain to me - exactly why did Jesus have to experience physical death?

Can you reference any scholar that holds to PSA who separates the suffering of Christ from His death as an element of PSA doctrine?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Can you reference any scholar that holds to PSA who separates the suffering of Christ from His death as an element of PSA doctrine?

peace to you

No. That is my point.

According to Penal Substitution Theory Christ did not have to die, except that for some mystery God included that in the punishment to satisfy His judgment.

There is no actual reason, per the theory, given as we still experience a physical death.

To make issues worse, Christ's death itself was not a part of punishment (He gave up His Spirit....the suffering ended).

The fact is with any type of RCC Satisfaction, to include Penal Substitution Theory, the Cross and Christ's death have no actual meaning.

But with traditional Christian faith Christ's death on a Roman cross and His resurrection from the dead are essential for the forgiveness of sin.

 

[canadyjd]

No. That is my point.

According to Penal Substitution Theory Christ did not have to die, except that for some mystery God included that in the punishment to satisfy His judgment.

There is no actual reason, per the theory, given as we still experience a physical death.

To make issues worse, Christ's death itself was not a part of punishment (He gave up His Spirit....the suffering ended).

The fact is with any type of RCC Satisfaction, to include Penal Substitution Theory, the Cross and Christ's death have no actual meaning.

But with traditional Christian faith Christ's death on a Roman cross and His resurrection from the dead are essential for the forgiveness of sin.

My point is that you are claiming that PSA holds that Jesus didn’t have to die. I tend to allow folks to define what they believe.

Now, I’m sure you are much more learned than I am on PSA, so you should be able to direct me to a notable proponent of PSA that says Jesus didn’t have to die as part of PSA theory.

If you cannot quote a PSA proponent that believes such things, then you are redefining what the definition of PSA.

Many have attempted to explain why your analysis is wrong. You seem fixated on these points that are logical fallacies.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

My point is that you are claiming that PSA holds that Jesus didn’t have to die.

I understand. I'll grant it could be miswording on my part (not going back to check but clarifying here).

Penal Substitution theorists do believe that Christ had to die.

Penal Substitution Theory itself, however, does not necessitate the Cross or Christ's death except as it was for a mystery a part of the punishment God chose.

Traditional Christianity, on the other hand, maintains that Jesus had to be made flesh, had to live, had to suffer by crucifixion on a Roman cross, had to die, and had to have been raised to life in order for man to be forgiven.

 

[canadyjd]

I understand. I'll grant it could be miswording on my part (not going back to check but clarifying here).

Penal Substitution theorists do believe that Christ had to die.

Penal Substitution Theory itself, however, does not necessitate the Cross or Christ's death except as it was for a mystery a part of the punishment God chose.

Traditional Christianity, on the other hand, maintains that Jesus had to be made flesh, had to live, had to suffer by crucifixion on a Roman cross, had to die, and had to have been raised to life in order for man to be forgiven.

Thanks for clarifying.

Your definition of “Traditional Christianity”….. who says that is the definition of “Traditional Christianity”?

What exactly is the connection, in this view, to all the things you mentioned and forgiveness… that these things must happen “in order for man to be forgiven”?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Thanks for clarifying.

Your definition of “Traditional Christianity”….. who says that is the definition of “Traditional Christianity”?

What exactly is the connection, in this view, to all the things you mentioned and forgiveness… that these things must happen “in order for man to be forgiven”?

peace to you

I am referring to Christianity prior to the 11th Century.

The connection is solidarity - that Christ had to come under our curse, suffer and die under the powers of evil, the "World", the powers of this age (which for the 1st century Jew was embodied by the Roman Empire) in order to be the "Second Adam" and ransomed us from those powers by providing a victory through the resurrection.

The view considers the snake in the Garden to represent Satan and the woman's Seed to refer to Jesus. The serpent "crushes" His heel and He "crushes" the serpent's head.

Without the one there is not the other. Christ had to experience the consequences of our sin in order to break the bonds it held over us (He had to become one of us, not in part but in full, only without sin....a man perfectly obedient to God).

 

[canadyjd]

I am referring to Christianity prior to the 11th Century.

The connection is solidarity - that Christ had to come under our curse, suffer and die under the powers of evil, the "World", the powers of this age (which for the 1st century Jew was embodied by the Roman Empire) in order to be the "Second Adam" and ransomed us from those powers by providing a victory through the resurrection.

The view considers the snake in the Garden to represent Satan and the woman's Seed to refer to Jesus. The serpent "crushes" His heel and He "crushes" the serpent's head.

Without the one there is not the other. Christ had to experience the consequences of our sin in order to break the bonds it held over us (He had to become one of us, not in part but in full, only without sin....a man perfectly obedient to God).

Who determined what the aspects of Christianity were prior to the 11th century?

I have to confess, I just read my Bible without studying what other people defined “traditional Christianity” to be and came away believing what I later learned was called the “doctrines of grace”. Though I didn’t know it was called PSA, I believed the elements of PSA before I read about the various views of the atonement.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Who determined what the aspects of Christianity were prior to the 11th century?

I have to confess, I just read my Bible without studying what other people defined “traditional Christianity” to be and came away believing what I later learned was called the “doctrines of grace”. Though I didn’t know it was called PSA, I believed the elements of PSA before I read about the various views of the atonement.

peace to you

Who determined that the Revolutionary war took place? Nobody determines history (although some try to revise it).

Until the 11th Century the Ransom Theory in one form or another was the Christian belief. This changed with Anselm when he developed Substitution Theory. The Moral Influence Theory countered Anselm. Aquinas revised Anselm and Calvin revised Aquinas.

You believe a Roman Catholic Doctrine once removed. That is your faith.

You say you stumbled on it simply by reading the Bible, in a vacuum, never exposed to Penal Substitution through ministers or media, or even culture. I doubt it.

But it is possible. Calvin did it. And it is based on a worldly understanding of justice. It even views the levitical sacrifice system akin to the pagan sacrifice system.

So yes, I can accept that you read the Bible and was led by your heart to believe Penal Substitution Theory. You should have stuck with "what is written" rather than where your heart led you.

 

[canadyjd]

….
You say you stumbled on it simply by reading the Bible, in a vacuum, never exposed to Penal Substitution through ministers or media, or even culture. I doubt it…..

I’m all done now.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

I’m all done now.

peace to you

I expect so.

The issue is that there are two forms of justice - the World's justice and God's justice.

What was ultimately on trial on the Cross was the World's justice. The serpent crushes His heel, but He crushed Satan's head. God won.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate brought up another weakness of the theory.

He argued that God did not punish Jesus but instead punished our sins that were laid on Him.

If this is true then God was unjust, punishing our sins with a lighter sentence than was deserved (being whipped, ridiculed, and crucified is less than the Second death and was not unique to Christ).

The way Penal Substitution Theory tries to reason away this issue is by saying that God was taking this punishment, innocent of any sin.

But this depends on Christ actually being punished.


It is a type legalistic voodoo. Actions being kain on another and punished, not the person suffering but the actions.

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution states 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. As you know, this is not something I made up for myself. I had hoped that it was something that would be the basis for a rational discussion, but you appear to have no interest in that. You think that God is unjust; well, you can argue that out with Him when you meet Him.

 

[JonC]

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution states 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. As you know, this is not something I made up for myself. I had hoped that it was something that would be the basis for a rational discussion, but you appear to have no interest in that. You think that God is unjust; well, you can argue that out with Him when you meet Him.

Glad to see you changed your view here. It was strange thinking that God did not punish Jesus but our sins laid on Him. I agree that is foolish.

I never once said you made up the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. It is reformed Roman Catholic doctrine.

I do not believe God is unjust. In fact, I know He is not (He will not acquit the guilty or punish the righteous).

 

[JonC]

I think we are missing the point of the OP.

@Martin Marprelate clouds the issue, a couple of others answer that Christ's death was necessary because that's what God wanted, but this far nobody has explained how Penal Substitution Theory applies Christ's death.

The reason is Penal Substitution Theory does not, other than in a general sense, need Christ to die or Christ to die on the Cross. It's chalked up to "mystery", just something lumped into the requirement of divine judgment but not in a substitution way.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Glad to see you changed your view here. It was strange thinking that God did not punish Jesus but our sins laid on Him. I agree that is foolish.

I never once said you made up the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. It is reformed Roman Catholic doctrine.

I do not believe God is unjust. In fact, I know He is not (He will not acquit the guilty or punish the righteous).

I have absolutely not changed my view as you very well know.
You have just shown me again how unpleasant it is to discuss with you, so please stop referencing my name.