Penalsubstitutalism 2

[JonC]

I thought that, in the light of the sudden ending of the previous thread, it might be interesting to see what brought the ending about. @Reynolds is right; the arguments against the Doctrine of Penal Substitution are mostly word games.

Then you have not understood the arguments against Penal Substitution Theory.

Well I quoted three texts and referenced three more. Why don't you try dealing with those, bearing in mind that Scripture does not contradict itself.

Sure.....BUT then get back to the topic.

'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.'

I agree. There is no condembation on Christ. BUT Scrioture states that in Christ we escaoe the wratg to come. As you read your Bible you will see this is God's wrath.

The condemned are condemned by God. The wratg to come is God's judgment.

The Bible teaches that that there is the wages if sin which is death, for sin begats death, but that there is also divine judgment "on that day", "on the day of wrath, at Judgment.

The wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord . This 8s the Second Death, and it is divine judgment - NOT the death sin produces.

It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.


. He has 'passed from death to life.' 'And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.' Yep. This is life in Christ Jesus. This is not talking about the physical death sin "begats". "Yet we die, so shall we live", "It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.'



The sinless One, Christ, is made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). You already said "sin" means actions (that Jesus was made a sinful action). I already said that sin is more than an action, so I believe this means Christ became sin for us. He shared in our infirmity, is the Son of Man.


God laid our iniquities on Him....He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities.'

Absolutely. I believe this means what it states.

God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

I know this is how you read the passage (as a problem to be solved rather than a declaration). Perhaps this is why you changed a word.

I believe the actually passage correct.



Fact remains that these passages do not support Penal Substitution Theory. You go to Scripture ti support your theory and always come up empty because God's Word does not state what you want it to state.

Your spelling is so ghastly that I don't know what you mean. Of course there is no condemnation on Christ, but did you mean in Christ? If so, why is there no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus? And what does it mean?

Of course! But this is where you are all at sea! We are not the wicked any more; we have been washed from our sins in the blood of Jesus (Rev. 1:5). We are now the righteousness of God in Him. We no longer draw the wages of sin because Christ has drawn them on our behalf.

Romans 8:1 again. Christians have nothing to do with that judgment. Our sins have been taken away (John 1:29).

I have never said that the Lord Jesus was made a sinful action. I have said that all our sins were laid on Him, and that can only be by imptation.

Well this is progress because for years you have denied that Christ was made sin. But 2 Cor. 5:21 does not say that He shared in our infirmity; you have invented that bit.

What exactly do you believe it states?

Rom. 3:26 (NKJV). 'To demonstrate at this time His righteousness, THAT He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.' I am reading it correctly. It is the solution of a problem. God solved it by setting the Lord Jesus forth as a propitiation by His blood. SO THAT He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus

The fact remains that they do support the Doctrine of Penal Substitution as I have shown. Only a Penal Substitution denier could continue to argue. I tell you and everyone else who reads this thread that unless Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for your sins in full and satisfied the justice of God, you will have to pay that penalty yourselves. The good news is that He has paid it, and propitiated the righteous anger of God against His people.

The spelling is because Im using my phone. If you can't understand something just ask


I believe the passage is talking about the righteousnessofGodbeingreveaked aoart from the Law, through faith in Jesus to all who believe. The distinction under the Law between Jew and Gentile no longer exists, for all have sinned. We are justified as a gift by God's mercy (something we did not deserve) through the redemption which is in Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as an atonement (some prefer "propitiation", but I'd use a more encompassing word which includes propitiation) in His blood through faith.

This was to demonstrate God's righteousness because in God's restraint He let past sins ho unpunished for the demonstration of His righteousness in the present time (when the Promise had come) so that He woukd be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ.

I am not sure how one could read the passage differently. Had God not let sins previous to Christ's death and resurrection go unpunished then how could those people be justified?

Then continue. Do you also have an idea of how or if the atonement relates to the individual sins that we have committed?

Yes.

If we agree that the wages of sin is death, sin begats death, death is "returning to dust", this death is a "power of darkness" then what is left would be the Judgment.


Men need to not only be forgiven but made without guilt. (We need to be forgiven and given a new heart). So as far as judgment goes these two things need to be accomplished for man to escape the wrath to come.

The wrath to come is God's wrath (not what sin produces but what God does).

This is called the Second Death, the "wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord".

Do we agree?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you have any passages actually stating what you believe?

Well I quoted three texts and referenced three more. Why don't you try dealing with those, bearing in mind that Scripture does not contradict itself.

 

[JonC]

Ok, Jon, you keep micro-analyzing the Word of God in your understanding and I'll apply Scripture to Scripture for my understanding.

If you can't see it by now, I give up and hand it over th the Lord.

I'm actually doing the opposite. Try simply reading Scripture and believing what is written. We don't need any more. It is foolishness to some, but to many of is it power of God unto salvation.

Good luck, brother.

 

[DaveXR650]

Do we agree?

I would say yes.

If we agree that the wages of sin is death, sin begats death, death is "returning to dust", this death is a "power of darkness" then what is left would be the Judgment.

I believe that physical death and spiritual death are what happens to men because of sin. Not trying to be tricky but are you attempting to separate the two for a reason? The reason I mention that is that those who believe in penal substitution believe that physical death is still that which we all go through but that spiritual death is also a result of the Fall. I would think we would all agree with that if you have any kind of theology of the necessity of being born again.

Men need to not only be forgiven but made without guilt. (We need to be forgiven and given a new heart). So as far as judgment goes these two things need to be accomplished for man to escape the wrath to come.

This is true, and important. I think that is why we try to go a little deeper into the actual thing done by Christ's atoning sacrifice. So how would you explain "guilt" in the sense of how we have it and how can we get rid of it and in light of the discussion that have occurred do we even need to get rid of it. This statement does not match your previous insistence that God can simply forgive sins. So, what is done about guilt?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sure.....BUT then get back to the topic.

'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.'

I agree. There is no condembation on Christ.

Your spelling is so ghastly that I don't know what you mean. Of course there is no condemnation on Christ, but did you mean in Christ? If so, why is there no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus? And what does it mean?

BUT Scrioture states that in Christ we escaoe the wratg to come. As you read your Bible you will see this is God's wrath.

The condemned are condemned by God. The wratg to come is God's judgment.

The Bible teaches that that there is the wages if sin which is death, for sin begats death, but that there is also divine judgment "on that day", "on the day of wrath, at Judgment.

The wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord . This 8s the Second Death, and it is divine judgment - NOT the death sin produces.

It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.

Of course! But this is where you are all at sea! We are not the wicked any more; we have been washed from our sins in the blood of Jesus (Rev. 1:5). We are now the righteousness of God in Him. We no longer draw the wages of sin because Christ has drawn them on our behalf.

. He has 'passed from death to life.' 'And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.' Yep. This is life in Christ Jesus. This is not talking about the physical death sin "begats". "Yet we die, so shall we live", "It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.'

Romans 8:1 again. Christians have nothing to do with that judgment. Our sins have been taken away (John 1:29).

The sinless One, Christ, is made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). You already said "sin" means actions (that Jesus was made a sinful action).

I have never said that the Lord Jesus was made a sinful action. I have said that all our sins were laid on Him, and that can only be by imptation.

I already said that sin is more than an action, so I believe this means Christ became sin for us. He shared in our infirmity, is the Son of Man.

Well this is progress because for years you have denied that Christ was made sin. But 2 Cor. 5:21 does not say that He shared in our infirmity; you have invented that bit.

God laid our iniquities on Him....He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities.'

Absolutely. I believe this means what it states.

What exactly do you believe it states?

God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

I know this is how you read the passage (as a problem to be solved rather than a declaration). Perhaps this is why you changed a word.

I believe the actually passage correct.

Rom. 3:26 (NKJV). 'To demonstrate at this time His righteousness, THAT He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.' I am reading it correctly. It is the solution of a problem. God solved it by setting the Lord Jesus forth as a propitiation by His blood. SO THAT He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus

Fact remains that these passages do not support Penal Substitution Theory. You go to Scripture ti support your theory and always come up empty because God's Word does not state what you want it to state.

The fact remains that they do support the Doctrine of Penal Substitution as I have shown. Only a Penal Substitution denier could continue to argue. I tell you and everyone else who reads this thread that unless Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for your sins in full and satisfied the justice of God, you will have to pay that penalty yourselves. The good news is that He has paid it, and propitiated the righteous anger of God against His people.

 

[JonC]

I would say yes.

I believe that physical death and spiritual death are what happens to men because of sin. Not trying to be tricky but are you attempting to separate the two for a reason? The reason I mention that is that those who believe in penal substitution believe that physical death is still that which we all go through but that spiritual death is also a result of the Fall. I would think we would all agree with that if you have any kind of theology of the necessity of being born again.

This is true, and important. I think that is why we try to go a little deeper into the actual thing done by Christ's atoning sacrifice. So how would you explain "guilt" in the sense of how we have it and how can we get rid of it and in light of the discussion that have occurred do we even need to get rid of it. This statement does not match your previous insistence that God can simply forgive sins. So, what is done about guilt?

Yes and no. I am separating death and judgment because Scripture separates death snd judgment. When I said "it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment", "sin begats death", and "the Second death" I was quoting Scripture.

The Bible teaches that the wages of sin, the consequences of sin, what sin produces, is death (returning to dust). But after this is the judgment.

I do not believe anybody has ever "died spiritually". Scripture tells us Adam would physically die (return to the dust), but the Second Death is the future for those NOT born of the Spirit.

Those who were not born of the Spirit are spiritually dead. They did not experience spiritual death (they were not spiritually alive and then died spiritually).


Now, I do believe the Second death is real, but this is God's judgment.


Do you know the passage they use to defend this "spiritual death"?

Are they trying to indicate the Second death (when the "wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord"....when Sheol and death are cast into the Lake of Fire)?

Of so, then that is God's judgment against the wicked ("the day of wrath"). I just wouldn't call it a "spiritual death" because these people were never born of the Spirit (I'd use "the second death" because that's what Scripture uses).

 

[37818]

. . . Myand shut out from the presence of the Lord". . . .

No. The everlasting fire is God's presence as eternal anger aka wrath. Which fire the man Jesus never bore on the cross being forsaken in our place.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yes and no. I am separating death and judgment because Scripture separates death snd judgment. When I said "it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment", "sin begats death", and "the Second death" I was quoting Scripture.

The Bible teaches that the wages of sin, the consequences of sin, what sin produces, is death (returning to dust). But after this is the judgment.

I do not believe anybody has ever "died spiritually". Scripture tells us Adam would physically die (return to the dust), but the Second Death is the future for those NOT born of the Spirit.

Those who were not born of the Spirit are spiritually dead. They did not experience spiritual death (they were not spiritually alive and then died spiritually).


Now, I do believe the Second death is real, but this is God's judgment.


Do you know the passage they use to defend this "spiritual death"?

This may be the cause of some of the talking past each other. If no one has ever died spiritually, and those who were not born of the Spirit are spiritually dead - I find a contradiction and confusion in those two statements. When I talk about being spiritually dead here I don't mean to refer to the controversial meaning of this in debates of Calvinism as to whether someone can respond to God. I am referring only to the idea that in the fall and under the curse we all are going to die. We see that, and all theologians teach that, including advocates of penal substitution. But the question is if it is destiny that a man die, what happens to him spiritually if nothing else happens to him and then he dies. Do you agree that he will undergo the final judgment of spiritual death? I think he will, and I think therefore it can be said that he was under sentence of spiritual death all along assuming nothing else happens as far as repentance toward God.

So, right now, if you are seriously wanting to discuss these issues I will ask, are individual men in a real jeopardy of spiritual death assuming they die without repentance toward God? I agree that we still die physically. Did the death of Christ have anything to do with our avoiding this spiritual death (either to come or as a present condition I don't care at this point) or are men not in jeopardy spiritually and if not why not.

And if you would answer what I asked earlier, does this have anything to do with the need for us to have something done about our guilt? These questions need to be addressed.

 

[JonC]

No. The everlasting fire is God's presence as eternal anger aka wrath. Which fire the man Jesus never bore on the cross being forsaken in our place.

I agree Jesus never experienced God's wrath. When Jesus died He was judged righteous. He is sinless, putting Himself under the consequences we earned.

 

[JonC]

This may be the cause of some of the talking past each other. If no one has ever died spiritually, and those who were not born of the Spirit are spiritually dead - I find a contradiction and confusion in those two statements. When I talk about being spiritually dead here I don't mean to refer to the controversial meaning of this in debates of Calvinism as to whether someone can respond to God. I am referring only to the idea that in the fall and under the curse we all are going to die. We see that, and all theologians teach that, including advocates of penal substitution. But the question is if it is destiny that a man die, what happens to him spiritually if nothing else happens to him and then he dies. Do you agree that he will undergo the final judgment of spiritual death? I think he will, and I think therefore it can be said that he was under sentence of spiritual death all along assuming nothing else happens as far as repentance toward God.

So, right now, if you are seriously wanting to discuss these issues I will ask, are individual men in a real jeopardy of spiritual death assuming they die without repentance toward God? I agree that we still die physically. Did the death of Christ have anything to do with our avoiding this spiritual death (either to come or as a present condition I don't care at this point) or are men not in jeopardy spiritually and if not why not.

And if you would answer what I asked earlier, does this have anything to do with the need for us to have something done about our guilt? These questions need to be addressed.

I don't understand the contradiction. "Flesh is born of flesh, spirit is born of spirit", "

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."


What I mean is Adam was created flesh (1 Corinthians 15). He did not "die spiritually". He had a human mind, body, soul, spirit). There are no passages saying man dies spiritually.


Are real men in serious danger of "spiritual death"? No. Real men, who do not believe, ARE spiritually dead (they have never been made spiritually alive or "born of the Spirit". They are in danger of the second death.

This is why Jedus referred to the lost as "dead". They are "dead in their sins" and in need of being "born of the Spirit"


Earlier you asked about man's guilt. Sorry I didn't respond.

As far as judgment goes, men need forgiveness but more than that we need to be born of the Spirit.

Scripture repeatedly tells us that God forgives when men repent and turn to Him. This repentance is a change from "a mind set on the flesh" to a "mind set on the Spirit". This is Christ who "became a life giving spirit".

To be forgiven we must believe in Christ (faith has two aspects - belief and repentance....to repent from the flesh is to believe in Christ, and to believe in Christ is to repent of the flesh).

But forgiveness does not mean "making unguilty". God will punish the wicked.

Where Penal Substitution Theory looks to God transferring sins to Christ and punishing them there to allow the guilty to go unpunished Scrioture offers another way.

Make the guilty innocent, the wicked righteous. Take out the old heart and put in a new one. Take out the old spirit and put in a new one. Put God's Spirit in that person. Make thar person a new creation in Christ.


This is what I mean by Scripture being the simplest answer. It's so simple a fisherman can get it while a theologian often gets lost in his philosophy. And God's Word makes perfect sense without adding to it or "filling gaps". It just does not suit the wisdom of man.

@DaveXR650

In a nutshell, non-complete list of passages to consider:


"the wages of sin us death"

"sin begats death"

"dust thou art and to dust thou will return"

"it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment"

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural;
and afterward that which is spiritual."

"God laid our iniquities on Him"

"He bore our sins bodily on the tree"

"He shared our infirmity"

"By His stripes we are healed"

"“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”

"the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

"No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

"And that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem"

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

“The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever, he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”

"I acknowledged my sin to you,and I did not cover my iniquity;I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,"

"Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,"

"If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

 

[DaveXR650]

There are no passages saying man dies spiritually.

No. Real men, who do not believe, ARE spiritually dead (they have never been made spiritually alive or "born of the Spirit". They are in danger of the second death.

Do you not see why this is confusing? You say in the same post that no passages say man dies spiritually. Then you say that men who don't believe ARE spiritually dead and are in danger of the second death. Is this not standard Reformed teaching, that we are born spiritually dead and thus we need to be born again.

I agree that no man dies spiritually, with the possible exception of Adam, who started out differently than we do who are born after the fall and the curse. I agree because, and you seem to agree, we start out spiritually dead. (Forgetting for one moment that I am not wanting to get into whether spiritually dead men can respond to the gospel, but only that their condition, as they currently are, unless they are born anew, is to remain spiritually dead.)
Thus:

This is why Jedus referred to the lost as "dead". They are "dead in their sins" and in need of being "born of the Spirit"

Yes, we certainly agree on this. So, if we can agree that men, naturally, are spiritually dead, and in need of being born of the Spirit, and we agree that all of us are destined to physical death whether we become born again or not then we can focus on the aspect from the spiritual side, since that is what can be avoided.

As far as judgment goes, men need forgiveness but more than that we need to be born of the Spirit.

I think we need to consider both as being essential but it is related to the forgiveness part that we have all the verses that we, and apparently you also use with Christ bearing our sin, washing us in his blood, and so on. I firmly believe that penal substitution is part of this in that God has a desire to be just as well as forgiving of wrongdoing.

But you have a point if you mean that if one were to use naked penal substitution as a stand alone total concept you could give someone a misunderstanding of what God wants for his people. In other words, you do not want to frame penal substitution in such a way that my sins can be transferred to Christ so that now I am free of them and cannot be subject to double jeopardy so I am Scott free so to speak with no concern about the burden of my sin, and no concern about whether I need to be concerned about sin in the future.

God has said we must be born again or from above, and be given new life as new creatures. But here again, most Reformed theology, and most Baptist theology, whether leaning Reformed or Free Will strongly assert this. God wants to save a people for himself, who he has given new life and who want to be his people. He never wanted us to use the concept of penal substitution as a "get out of jail free card" and yet not have a changed and new life. And yet, I believe there is plenty of scriptural evidence that there has to be as part of our salvation, a direct action by Christ, according to the will of the Father, in washing us, making us clean, and purging us from our sins and in that somehow is a transfer of the guilt and consequences of the sin to Christ. The only way to get around this would be to have such a high view of being born again that there literally is no logical connection between the washed, saved, and new person and the person we were. That won't work because it would be no comfort and no logical reason for scripture to worry about "conversion" or any concept related to it if indeed what happens is that I simply cease to exist and something else is created with no connection at all to me. Then scripture could not say "they have forgotten they were purged from their old sins", or "such were some of you, but now you are washed, now you are clean".

You indeed must be born of the Spirit, and you need forgiveness that is based on God's sense of holiness and justice as well as his inexplicable love for us.

Being alive in the Spirit ("spiritual life") is eternal and based on Jesus "becoming a life giving spirit".

No need to quibble over terms. If in any way and at a point in time someone becomes "alive in the Spirit" it is reasonable to assume that before that they were not alive in the Spirit. Anything can be discussed into confusion. That's why they have advanced degrees, to teach one how to do that. Point is, scripture describes a concept of new life in Christ and being "born again". Scripture also deals with man in his state of being guilty and having sinned before God. That is dealt with also. You are correct in saying that what is needed, and the only thing needed, on our part, is to believe. But, in an effort to be one who follows only scripture, you don't want to forget other scripture which discusses how our sinfulness has caused us to be separated from fellowship with a holy God and how Jesus bore our sin in his own body on the cross and washed us in his blood.

Sometimes I wonder if we should even try to have "theology". I read a lot of it and I find without exception contradictions and mistakes everywhere and in everyone and every group or school. But then I see that we do indeed need some of it simply because by systematic thought you can keep in mind one passage and not forget another passage that you read earlier. You do that when for instance you say that we can simply repent to God and he can simply forgive. It's true, but not the whole explanation. Penal substitution was there as the basis for this all the time.

 

[JonC]

Do you not see why this is confusing? You say in the same post that no passages say man dies spiritually. Then you say that men who don't believe ARE spiritually dead and are in danger of the second death. Is this not standard Reformed teaching, that we are born spiritually dead and thus we need to be born again.

I agree that no man dies spiritually, with the possible exception of Adam, who started out differently than we do who are born after the fall and the curse. I agree because, and you seem to agree, we start out spiritually dead. (Forgetting for one moment that I am not wanting to get into whether spiritually dead men can respond to the gospel, but only that their condition, as they currently are, unless they are born anew, is to remain spiritually dead.)
Thus:

Yes, we certainly agree on this. So, if we can agree that men, naturally, are spiritually dead, and in need of being born of the Spirit, and we agree that all of us are destined to physical death whether we become born again or not then we can focus on the aspect from the spiritual side, since that is what can be avoided.

I kinda see why some might see that as confusing. But I do not think it should be.

I used "spiritually dead" because you used "spiritual death". But in Scripture there is no such thing. Being alive in the Spirit ("spiritual life") is eternal and based on Jesus "becoming a life giving spirit".

We must be born of the Spirit. That is "spiritual life". There is no such thing as "spiritual death". The flesh and the things of the flesh will pass away. But not the spirit, not "spiritual life", not the things of the Spirit. These are eternal.

The Biblical term is "dead in your trespasses".

Maybe it would help if we stuck to biblical terms?

(I do not mean to be confusing).

I think we need to consider both as being essential but it is related to the forgiveness part that we have all the verses that we, and apparently you also use with Christ bearing our sin, washing us in his blood, and so on. I firmly believe that penal substitution is part of this in that God has a desire to be just as well as forgiving of wrongdoing.

But you have a point if you mean that if one were to use naked penal substitution as a stand alone total concept you could give someone a misunderstanding of what God wants for his people. In other words, you do not want to frame penal substitution in such a way that my sins can be transferred to Christ so that now I am free of them and cannot be subject to double jeopardy so I am Scott free so to speak with no concern about the burden of my sin, and no concern about whether I need to be concerned about sin in the future.

God has said we must be born again or from above, and be given new life as new creatures. But here again, most Reformed theology, and most Baptist theology, whether leaning Reformed or Free Will strongly assert this. God wants to save a people for himself, who he has given new life and who want to be his people. He never wanted us to use the concept of penal substitution as a "get out of jail free card" and yet not have a changed and new life. And yet, I believe there is plenty of scriptural evidence that there has to be as part of our salvation, a direct action by Christ, according to the will of the Father, in washing us, making us clean, and purging us from our sins and in that somehow is a transfer of the guilt and consequences of the sin to Christ. The only way to get around this would be to have such a high view of being born again that there literally is no logical connection between the washed, saved, and new person and the person we were. That won't work because it would be no comfort and no logical reason for scripture to worry about "conversion" or any concept related to it if indeed what happens is that I simply cease to exist and something else is created with no connection at all to me. Then scripture could not say "they have forgotten they were purged from their old sins", or "such were some of you, but now you are washed, now you are clean".

You indeed must be born of the Spirit, and you need forgiveness that is based on God's sense of holiness and justice as well as his inexplicable love for us.

Yes, I agree with us "being washed in His blood". This is a part of the passages I quoted (I may not have included that part of the passage).


I disagree that penal substitution is involved at all. Scripture is very clear concerning the basis that God forgives. This is repentance and turning to God. That is what the Bible says to do and we will be forgiven.

How does that look? What is repentance? It is turning away from a "mind set on the flesh which is death". What is belief? It is turning to a mind set on the Spirit. It is turning from putting our faith in us and believing in Jesus Christ - turning to God.

How do we do this? It is by the work of the Spirit. God "draws" us. God transforms us - "gives us a new heart" "a new spirit", puts His Spirit in us", "purifies us", "sprinkles clean water" on us, "cleanses us".

Penal Substitution Theory is not only absent from Scripture, but it is unnecessary.

"Christ bore our sin", "died for our sin," "shared in our iniquity".

That last way Scripture puts Jesus bearing our sin should help explain what I mean. He "shared in our iniquity". This is not substitution.

The Cross was G9d reconciling humanity ("man" or "mankind") to Himself, not counting mankind's sins. This is the basis men are reconciled to God.


Christ conquered death, the product of sin, and became a life giving Spirit that all who belueve in Him will have life. Men must be born of the Spirit, die to sin, die to the flesh, be made new creatures in Christ, in Whom there is no condemnation.


There is no room for Penal Substitution Theory. This theory is based on a 16th century judicial philosophy....and what tured out to be a failed philosophy. It demands that sins be punished in order to restore justice. Scrioture does not.


What does the Bible say is needed for God to forgive sins?

 

[JD731]

@Charlie24

I was hoping we could have a discussion where we could examine where our understandings diverge.

You are, once again, simply making statements of what you think without any structure or biblical evidence.

What passage states that God demands payment for sins?
Why would this fall under what sin (what the powers of darkness) begats rather than God's judgment?
What passage states that Jesus made a "sin offering offeting payment"?
What passage states that salvation is through the Law?
What passage states that Jesus only saved those under the Law?

Define death biblically so everyone is on the same page.

I know you are not a Calvinist so you will not trouble us with likening death to their silly notion of total inability to hear the gospel and believe God.

For instance, what does death mean in this passage?

Eph 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein (in death) in time past ye walked according to the course of this world,......

One thing is sure, physically dead men do not walk.

 

[JonC]

Define death biblically so everyone is on the same page.

I know you are not a Calvinist so you will not trouble us with likening death to their silly notion of total inability to hear the gospel and believe God.

For instance, what does death mean in this passage?

Eph 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein (in death) in time past ye walked according to the course of this world,......

One thing is sure, physically dead men do not walk.

OK (and you are right....definitions are important as without them we end up talking past one another).

It depends on context, but Scripture speaks of two deaths:

1. Death when the body dies ("returns to dust") as a consequence of sin ("sin begats death")
2. The "Second Death" which is a direct action of God as He judges. Thus is defined as "Sheol and death being cast into the Lake of Fire", "The wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord".

Then there is "dead".

The flesh is dead in sin. The lost are dead in their sins and trespasses.


Stephen Hawking was dead in his trespasses. He did not have spiritual life. He did not and die spiritually. He was never born of the Spirit. So we could say he was spiritually dead, but we cannot say he died spiritually or experienced spiritual death. He died and will experience the second death.

Adam was created flesh, made a living soul, created upright. Then God placed Adam in the Garden, in His presence. Adam had a "mind set on the flesh" (he had desires of the flesh, not desires of the Spirit). Adam sinned. But Adam did not "die spiritually". Ultimately Adzm's sin shows us that man needs to be "born of the Spirit". And this is always Christ, always the Life, and never ending because God is eternal.

If a rock was capable of life then the rocks in my yard are dead, they were never alive, yet they have not died.

Does that help?

 

[Paleouss]

Anything can be discussed into confusion. That's why they have advanced degrees, to teach one how to do that.

Funny!!!

 

[DaveXR650]

Penal Substitution Theory is not only absent from Scripture, but it is unnecessary.

"Christ bore our sin", "died for our sin," "shared in our iniquity".

That last way Scripture puts Jesus bearing our sin should help explain what I mean. He "shared in our iniquity". This is not substitution.

One way to look at that would be that when you say Jesus shared our iniquity you should remember that he had no iniquity of his own. Therefore "sharing our iniquity" technically should be taking our iniquity on himself, which is indeed penal substitution. He did share our iniquity and infirmity in the sense of being a second Adam and thus by being "in Christ" we can share all the benefits with Him. And it could be said that we have some benefits of his atoning work above and before we come to him in faith. If anyone is interested, get a hold of the old G. Campbell Morgan writings on the cross and he explains this very well. (And for he record he was not a Calvinist.)

Bottom line: Shared our iniquity, in the case where the one sharing with you had none of his own, is indeed substitution. The way specifically it becomes more than sharing and thus becomes substitution is if the "sharing" results in the one who really earned the consequences is "let off" because of the sharing of the innocent one. This is especially brought out like Morgan explains it in that Christ in sharing our iniquity, and having none of his own, had value or merit in this taking on of the consequences of sin that he did not need. And in him, we have it. To me, and to Morgan too, that is sufficiently described as "vicarious substitution" although from a slightly different angle.

If I see a group of men who are condemned to be executed and in solidarity with them I voluntarily join them and am executed too then I indeed "shared" their punishment and truly was not their substitute. But if I voluntarily join them and as a result of that made it possible that they escape the sentence of execution then I indeed was their substitute and there is no way to weasel out of that. That is what happened when Christ shared our infirmity and bore our sins, not just sharing, but substitution. And this is why theologians who put a proper premium on the concept of the necessity of being "in Christ" as the only basis for any salvific benefits to us also, and and far as I know with no exceptions, believe firmly and state it so - in penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

One way to look at that would be that when you say Jesus shared our iniquity you should remember that he had no iniquity of his own. Therefore "sharing our iniquity" technically should be taking our iniquity on himself, which is indeed penal substitution. He did share our iniquity and infirmity in the sense of being a second Adam and thus by being "in Christ" we can share all the benefits with Him. And it could be said that we have some benefits of his atoning work above and before we come to him in faith. If anyone is interested, get a hold of the old G. Campbell Morgan writings on the cross and he explains this very well. (And for he record he was not a Calvinist.)

Bottom line: Shared our iniquity, in the case where the one sharing with you had none of his own, is indeed substitution. The way specifically it becomes more than sharing and thus becomes substitution is if the "sharing" results in the one who really earned the consequences is "let off" because of the sharing of the innocent one. This is especially brought out like Morgan explains it in that Christ in sharing our iniquity, and having none of his own, had value or merit in this taking on of the consequences of sin that he did not need. And in him, we have it. To me, and to Morgan too, that is sufficiently described as "vicarious substitution" although from a slightly different angle.

If I see a group of men who are condemned to be executed and in solidarity with them I voluntarily join them and am executed too then I indeed "shared" their punishment and truly was not their substitute. But if I voluntarily join them and as a result of that made it possible that they escape the sentence of execution then I indeed was their substitute and there is no way to weasel out of that. That is what happened when Christ shared our infirmity and bore our sins, not just sharing, but substitution. And this is why theologians who put a proper premium on the concept of the necessity of being "in Christ" as the only basis for any salvific benefits to us also, and and far as I know with no exceptions, believe firmly and state it so - in penal substitution.

The reason "shared our iniquity" is not penal substitution is the word "shared". This does not mean "instead of us", but "with us", "Son of Man", "made in every way like His brethren", etc.

When something is shared both parties partake of that something.

But yes, it was our iniquity and not His own. He died for our sins, bore our sins, shared our iniquity. And this it why it is by His stripes we are healed, through His blood we are cleansed.


Your last paragraph shows the issue with Penal Substitution Theory.

Scripture does not indicate we escaoe the wages of sin but does indicate we escape the wrath to come. Jesus shared our iniquity, came under the curse with us, suffered the wages of sin (the death sin begats) with us. This is a representation (the "Second Adam", the "Son of Man").

But in Christ our sins are forgiven. We are transformed. We are made new creations. We escape the wrath to come. We are initially guilty wicked men but we are not only forgiven- we are made not guilty, new creations.



For example, suppose Steve is an evil man. Steve has robbed peoole. Last year Steve tossed an elderly woman out of her wheel chair and stole it just for fun. Steve is a drunkard involved in all kinds of immoral acts.

But I wave a magic wand and Steve is transformed into a new creation....Dave. Now Dave is legitimately a new creation. He is not Steve but must die to Steve.

Dave appears before a judge on an appointed day. Accusers cry "guilty!". But the judge now says "Dave is innocent. The guilty guy was Steve and Steve no longer exists.



Penal Substitution Theory has absolutely nothing to do with Scripture except in using God's Word to try to support the theory. It imposes a 16th century judicial philosophy that views justice as restoring a balance - a crime demands punishment.

You probably read Les Miserables in school, or maybe seen the movie adaptation. One of the themes is social injustice inherit within the judicial philosophy of the time. This referenced France in the late 18th century. But the problem of John Cslvin's philosophy is there. You steal a loaf of bread to feed your sister and her family. This creates a demand on justice that must be satisfied for justice ti be restored.


God is just and justified the one who believes in Christ in a way that the secular world finds impossible. How can a person really be made a new creation? Penal Substitution theoriest do not brkueve this is possible, they believe the new creation carries the old creation with them into judgment so somebody must be punished.

But that is a major difference. I believe God actually makes us new creations, transforms us into the image of Christ, and forgives sin.

 

[JesusFan]

I am going to start with my belief, and perhaps we can see where Penal Substitution theorists depart.

Let's take it step by step.

The Fall of Man

God created Adam from the dust of the ground. God planted a garden in Eden, and He put Adam in this garden. God made all types of trees that produced fruits appealing to the eye and good to eat, but God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, informing him that when he eats of it he will certainly die.

The Serpent deceived Eve, telling her that eating of the fruit would not cause certain death, but that God knows that when she eats from it her eyes will be opened, and she will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Eve saw that the fruit was pleasing to the eye, it was good for food, and she desired it to give her wisdom. She ate of the fruit and gave some to Adam. Adam ate of the fruit.

Because of this their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.
God pronounced a curse on the Serpent, saying He would put enmity between the Serpent and Eve's offspring - the Serpent would strike his heel and he would crush the Serpent's head.

Because of Adam's sin the ground was cursed. Adam would work for food until the day he died - “for dust you are, and to dust you will return”.

As Adam and Eve had become like God knowing good and evil, God excited Adam and Eve from the garden, back to the ground where he was created, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever.

Two Main Problems

The Biblical text provides two main problems for man. One is a product of sin (“sin begats death”). Man is dust and to dust he would return. Through Adam's transgression sin entered the world and through sin death entered the world.

But the other problem is more severe and it was imposed by God. Man was cast out of the Garden, back to the ground where he was formed. God ensured Adam could not return. This is a separation from the presence Adam enjoyed from the time he was taken from where he was formed until he was cast out.

Two issues - death (begat by sin) and God's judgment (casting out). It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.

You missed there that we were now under the curse of the Fall, were going forward all born into Original Sin aspect of the fall, and now spiritually dead in our sin natures

Barring any disagreement with the above, the Atonement must meet two criteria:

1. The wages of sin (death) must be addressed. Sin begats death. Sin and death needs to be overcome. Men will experience the wages of sin as all have sinned and sin begats death.

2. The judgment of God must be addressed. We need a means by which to obtain forgiveness and not be "cast out".

It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.

We saw this in Jesus. He bore our sins, became a curse for us. He suffered the wages of sin, shared our infirmity, died. And then He was vindicated, sat at the right hand of the Father....not "can't out". He became a life giving Spirit.

Individual sins must be atoned for by the reddemer, not just a blanket covering group sins

That didn't take long. I disagree with the bold.

2 Cor. 5:21

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

He was the Sin-offering for us, taking our place, "the just for the unjust"

You have to let go of the Micro-analyzing, Jon. You can't inject your understanding into the Scripture, you must inject Scripture with Scripture and leave Jon out of it.

Since jesus bore our sins upon that cross, would he not also MUST bear what we would from God when judged?

The reason "shared our iniquity" is not penal substitution is the word "shared". This does not mean "instead of us", but "with us", "Son of Man", "made in every way like His brethren", etc.

When something is shared both parties partake of that something.

But yes, it was our iniquity and not His own. He died for our sins, bore our sins, shared our iniquity. And this it why it is by His stripes we are healed, through His blood we are cleansed.


Your last paragraph shows the issue with Penal Substitution Theory.

Scripture does not indicate we escaoe the wages of sin but does indicate we escape the wrath to come. Jesus shared our iniquity, came under the curse with us, suffered the wages of sin (the death sin begats) with us. This is a representation (the "Second Adam", the "Son of Man").

But in Christ our sins are forgiven. We are transformed. We are made new creations. We escape the wrath to come. We are initially guilty wicked men but we are not only forgiven- we are made not guilty, new creations.



For example, suppose Steve is an evil man. Steve has robbed peoole. Last year Steve tossed an elderly woman out of her wheel chair and stole it just for fun. Steve is a drunkard involved in all kinds of immoral acts.

But I wave a magic wand and Steve is transformed into a new creation....Dave. Now Dave is legitimately a new creation. He is not Steve but must die to Steve.

Dave appears before a judge on an appointed day. Accusers cry "guilty!". But the judge now says "Dave is innocent. The guilty guy was Steve and Steve no longer exists.



Penal Substitution Theory has absolutely nothing to do with Scripture except in using God's Word to try to support the theory. It imposes a 16th century judicial philosophy that views justice as restoring a balance - a crime demands punishment.

You probably read Les Miserables in school, or maybe seen the movie adaptation. One of the themes is social injustice inherit within the judicial philosophy of the time. This referenced France in the late 18th century. But the problem of John Cslvin's philosophy is there. You steal a loaf of bread to feed your sister and her family. This creates a demand on justice that must be satisfied for justice ti be restored.


God is just and justified the one who believes in Christ in a way that the secular world finds impossible. How can a person really be made a new creation? Penal Substitution theoriest do not brkueve this is possible, they believe the new creation carries the old creation with them into judgment so somebody must be punished.

But that is a major difference. I believe God actually makes us new creations, transforms us into the image of Christ, and forgives sin.

You still have NEVER provided a means/basis apart from Psa that permits God to declare a guilty sinner not guilty now

To answer your first sentence, we must die physically because of the sin dwelling in our bodies.

God doesn't rehabilitate man, He demands that man die for his sins, physically.

Then the one who accepts Christ is born-again in spirit and soul, but the body must die.

That's why I have said many times we are 2/3 saved, the body is not saved until the resurrection.

God demanded a perfect sacrifice for sin, none of us meet that demand.

Christ lived His life perfectly, never sinning in deed or thought, and that is the perfect sin-offering God would accept, the just for the unjust.

IF atonement was Not psa in nature, why was the necessity of Jesus shedding His blood upon the Cross, would not Him just agreeing to die period be sufficient?

 

[JonC]

Funny!!!

@DaveXR650 's comment is funny. But it is also but true, which makes it sad.

Scripture tells us God forgives us if we repent and believe. That is simple.

But theologians say God forgives us by transferring our sins to Jesus and punishing our sins on Jesus to clear the debt and satisfy the demands of divine justice so that man can escape the wrath to come, and then God makes this guilty but forgiven person a new creation because....well....who knows why the dude is already forgiven, but He does it.

I have grown to back away from Christian philosophy because there is just too much that contradicts or adds to God's Word. And I studied theology! What has been helpful was studying how these newer theories (like Penal Substitution Theory) developed. History is interesting, but I recommend keeping philosophy at arms length.

You missed there that we were now under the curse of the Fall, were going forward all born into Original Sin aspect of the fall, and now spiritually dead in our sin natures

BUT what passage did I miss? What Scripture did I miss?

You have to remember I was never Catholic.

He and we also all spiritually died at the fall, correct?

Not according to Scripture. In the Bible there are two deaths - when we "return to dust" and the "Second death".

You still have NEVER provided a means/basis apart from Psa that permits God to declare a guilty sinner not guilty now

Yes, I did. I even provided the passages that state that basis.

Please start reading my posts before replying.

Do you affirm original Sin?

Yes. There was a first sin. Adam sinned and through His sin death entered the world.

If you mean the Catholic doctrine, no.

IF atonement was Not psa in nature, why was the necessity of Jesus shedding His blood upon the Cross, would not Him just agreeing to die period be sufficient?

Serious??? Read my post.

I explained why Jesus' death was necessary. I explained to you on another thread why the crucifixion on a Roman cross was necessary.


If you did not read my answer the many times we interacted (here and via PM) then I have to assume one more time will not help. I think you may just be trolling.

You still have NEVER provided a means/basis apart from Psa that permits God to declare a guilty sinner not guilty now

Yes, I did. You don't have to believe what I said is true, but I have answered this to you specifically on the open forum and we have discussed this via PM as well.

Since jesus bore our sins upon that cross, would he not also MUST bear what we would from God when judged?

No. Jesus did not suffer the "Second death". Jesus "shared our infirmity" and suffered the death that sin produces ("sin begats death").

The wicked who experience the second death remain condemned and in their dins because "the Light has come into the world and they rejected the Light".

When we get born again, are we not experiencing the rebirth of the spiritual aspect of humanity that died in Adam?

No. We are experiencing a spiritual birth in Jesus Christ Who "became a life giving Spirit". We are being "transformed into the image of Christ", not pre-Fall Adam.

Where are you getting these ideas, @JesusFan ? I mean, what denomination are you snd who are the people you follow?

I agree, but seems that some equate God able to forgive just due to a sinner repenting and asking for it

Ummmmm.......how does the Bible say God forgives us?

"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

"No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

"And that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem"

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

“The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever, he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”

"I acknowledged my sin to you,and I did not cover my iniquity;I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,"

"Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,"

"If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

 

[JesusFan]

No.

I am saying that Adam sinned and because of that sin would "return to dust", for the wages of sin is death, sin begats death.

I'm talking about the "die" in "it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment".

That's the part I've been trying to get agreement on before continuing.

God's immediate judgment on Adam was to cast him out. This is a separation. So is the Second Death.

The " wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord".

He and we also all spiritually died at the fall, correct?

@DaveXR650 's comment is funny. But it is also but true, which makes it sad.

Scripture tells us God forgives us if we repent and believe. That is simple.

But theologians say God forgives us by transferring our sins to Jesus and punishing our sins on Jesus to clear the debt and satisfy the demands of divine justice so that man can escape the wrath to come, and then God makes this guilty but forgiven person a new creation because....well....who knows why the dude is already forgiven, but He does it.

I have grown to back away from Christian philosophy because there is just too much that contradicts or adds to God's Word. And I studied theology! What has been helpful was studying how these newer theories (like Penal Substitution Theory) developed. History is interesting, but I recommend keeping philosophy at arms length.

By what basis/means though permits God to forgive sinners?

BUT what passage did I miss? What Scripture did I miss?

You have to remember I was never Catholic.

Do you affirm original Sin?

I kinda see why some might see that as confusing. But I do not think it should be.

I used "spiritually dead" because you used "spiritual death". But in Scripture there is no such thing. Being alive in the Spirit ("spiritual life") is eternal and based on Jesus "becoming a life giving spirit".

We must be born of the Spirit. That is "spiritual life". There is no such thing as "spiritual death". The flesh and the things of the flesh will pass away. But not the spirit, not "spiritual life", not the things of the Spirit. These are eternal.

The Biblical term is "dead in your trespasses".

Maybe it would help if we stuck to biblical terms?

(I do not mean to be confusing).

The aspect of ourt nature that communes with God, allows us to have fellowship with God died in the fall, as all born into Adam are in sin natures, dead to things and ways of God, spiritually blinded

Sounds as though you're speaking of Christ dying spiritually and going to Hell?

This is the Word of Faith proclamation.

No, God forbid that heresy they preach! rather Jesus as the atoning sin beasrer received upon Himself what we should when jusged by the Living God, so he did partake of experience "Hell" for His time upon that Cross, when felt seperation from His Father and experienced judgement and comdemnation

Not according to Scripture. In the Bible there are two deaths - when we "return to dust" and the "Second death".

When we get born again, are we not experiencing the rebirth of the spiritual aspect of humanity that died in Adam?

Christ had to shed His blood, the only way of forgiveness of sins in through the blood.

Lev. 17:11

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

I agree, but seems that some equate God able to forgive just due to a sinner repenting and asking for it

Depends on how you interpret, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Some say God couldn't bear the sight of Christ bearing our sins during the period of darkness, and turned His head.

I would see that as actually Jesus feeling the very abonnement and loss of the presence of God all will who are judged at GWT

No. We are experiencing a spiritual birth in Jesus Christ Who "became a life giving Spirit". We are being "transformed into the image of Christ", not pre-Fall Adam.

Where are you getting these ideas, @JesusFan ? I mean, what denomination are you snd who are the people you follow?


Ummmmm.......how does the Bible say God forgives us?

"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

"No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

"And that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem"

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

“The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever, he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”

"I acknowledged my sin to you,and I did not cover my iniquity;I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,"

"Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,"

"If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

I am a Baptist, and surely you must know that spiritual death as result of the Fall, as now being born in Original Sin and being sinners in our very natures are taught and held by reformed and Baptists?

And since you deny we are spiritually dead by nature, then makes some sense why rejecting psa