Penalsubstitutalism 2

[Charlie24]

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

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

This is the Word of Faith proclamation.

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?

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."

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

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

Forgiveness of sins is based on Grace through faith, in what Christ has already done for us through His death, burial, and resurrection.

So when you accept Christ through repentance and faith, forgiveness of sins is there waiting for you.

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

What are you talking about? Where did I deny that?

I'm pretty sure you are confused of many things, my friend.

 

[JonC]

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

@JesusFan

Can you slow down a bit and provide passages that state what you believe?

I think that will help all involved. Even those of us who disagree with your theories accept Scripture, so that would provide a common point of discussion.

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?

I am a Baptist but I also hold a sola scriptura position.

You are talking about Catholic doctrine (pre-Schism), not Baptist doctrine, although many Baptist's continue this via tradition.


We need to "test" doctrine. God has instructed us to "test" doctrine against "what is written," in Scripture.

How can I know your theory here is correct if you cannot provide any passages?????


This demonstrates the problem with many churches. They hold doctrine based on tradition (here actual Catholic doctrine, with Penal Substitution Theory it's reformed Roman Catholic doctrine).

We need to go back to God's Word and test doctrine. We need to do this often.



@JesusFan

I am going to remove you from this thread because you are missing the topic.

We are examining one another's doctrine against Scripture to see where we start moving apart.

You are just making claims, no Scripture, no support. Here you essentially confess you simply assume what is taught by some churches to be true.


If you will, start a thread and post your theories. If you want me to participate then include me and I'll gladly show up ("@" and "jonc".... @JonC) .

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

Yeah. There's where I think you are mistaken. Shared does not mean "instead of" but it can. On the Titanic, there were a couple of notable cases where a wealthy couple decided to refuse a seat on the lifeboat, on the grounds that they would not take the seat of a younger person or a woman. They indeed shared in the fact of being ship wreaked. But when his offer to stay on the ship left a place for a young person to be rescued substitution occurred whether you like it or not. It cannot be defined out of the scenario. You are forcing an either/or definition where no such bending of meaning is warranted.

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").

We don't escape all the wages of sin. We still die physically, get sick, live out our lives in a sinful world. But we escape the final wages of sin. Just like when we are born again and new creations we still have to battle sin, fight defects and the world, flesh and the devil, even though we are in reality new creations. But yes, the cosmic aspects and the idea of Christ as a representative second Adam is true, and taught by advocates of penal substitution.

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.

I'm not sure how to take teaching it like this. I agree that the reality of being a new creation in Christ is a neglected doctrine in some circles. But it is not Steve being changed into Dave. It is Dave the old man being made into Dave the new man. If you don't do that then you have no logical connection between the two and the scripture seems to see importance in teaching that YOU are made a new creature. Otherwise, it could just be a matter of destroying Steve and making a Dave. But that is not good news for Steve!

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.

I love Les Miserables. In the latest movie version when they bring him back to the priest after he stole the silverware and the priest says "I'm glad you came back. You forgot the candlesticks". Well. I'm glad I was watching it alone. But Les Miserables shows legalism run amuck. Even the Old Testament refers to a man who steals bread for his family.

 

[JonC]

Yeah. There's where I think you are mistaken. Shared does not mean "instead of" but it can.

I don't share your conclusion . But I'll, for the sake of argument, grant it may. The problem is Scripture offers no reason for it to mean "instead of".

Bear with me a moment.

Scripture walks us through the death appointed to man and then the judgment.

Scripture tells us exactly what happened with the Fall (whatever "death" Adam introduced God equated with "for dust thou are and to dust thou will return).

Scripture tells us that death (the "first death") is produced by sin itself as something we earn (a wage).

Scripture tells us that God forgives when we repent and believe in Him.

Scripture tells us that we are made new creations in Christ.


The "problem" penal substitution theorists try to solve is one they impose on God, and that is a very questionable judicial philosophy.

Scripture itself (if we just take the text as complete) explains sin, death, redemption, forgiveness....and this without penal substitution theory.

Penal substitution theorists find this lacking because it does not meet the demand they put on God to punish sins and satisfy their judicial philosophy. So they say "but maybe world can mean some people", "maybe all can bean some", maybe bore means bore instead of us", maybe shated means instead of us".

Problem is there is no need for this.

But we escape the final wages of sin.

I strongly disagree. The reason is Scripture (as you acknowledge) tells us the wage of sin is death as sin produces death. The wages of sin (what sin produces) is death.

I go back to "it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment".

God's judgment is not a wage of sin. It is not something sin begats. It is the action of God. And it not punishment for sins. It is God's righteous condemnation of the wicked who are condemned because the Lighthas come into the world and they rejected the Light because their deeds were evil.

Judgment on the wicked is far worse, far more significant than the wages of sin. It is the second death. It is final, when the "wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord".

I'm not sure how to take teaching it like this. I agree that the reality of being a new creation in Christ is a neglected doctrine in some circles. But it is not Steve being changed into Dave. It is Dave the old man being made into Dave the new man. If you don't do that then you have no logical connection between the two and the scripture seems to see importance in teaching that YOU are made a new creature. Otherwise, it could just be a matter of destroying Steve and making a Dave. But that is not good news for Steve!

Lol....I guess it isn't good news for the "old man". But he must go. We must die to the flesh, and if saved we will as we are transformed into the image of Christ, refined as precious metal is refined in a furnace.

But this is what Scripture actually says. We must die to the flesh, to the "old man", to Steve. Abd we must be "made anew", "made new creations".

This is a huge difference between our positions. I don't think it is where the drift between views begin, but it highlights a difference in how God is just and justifier.

Let's look at the two views:

A. God removes the old heart, the old spirit and gives man a new heart and spirit. God puts His Spirit in man. God makes man a new creation, the old passes and the new is established. God transforms man into the image of Christ. Man is born of the Spirit. Man no longer has a mind set on the flesh but a mind set on the Spirit. Man is made into the image of Christ. Man dies to sin. The "old man" dies. The guilty is made not guilty. The unrighteous is made righteous so that at Judgment he is not numbered among the wicked. In Christ there is no condemnation.

B. God must meet the demands of justice, therefore God takes our sins znd transferrs our sins to Jesus. On the cross God punished our sins laid on Jesus satisfying the demands of divine justice and clearing our sin debt. God then takes the man and declares him justified based on the righteousness of Christ. H9d gives the man a new heart and spirit. The man is forgiven, although is still guilty.

T
I believe it is up to each person to decide which one of those views are in the text of Scripture. We are accountable to God, not one another, in regard to our faith and what we teach. I just believe we all (myself included) need to approach testing our faith prayerfully with open Bibles every chance we get.

I love Les Miserables

Which movie did you like best?

I think I liked the 1998 movie better than the musical.

 

[DaveXR650]

Penal substitution theorists find this lacking because it does not meet the demand they put on God to punish sins and satisfy their judicial philosophy. So they say "but maybe world can mean some people", "maybe all can bean some", maybe bore means bore instead of us", maybe shated means instead of us".

No one puts a demand on God. But if God reveals things about himself then we have to accept them. I'm not going to go into his attributes again as I know you are well aware of them. But I just want to say that I agree with the Reformers that there are barriers between us and God to our approaching and receiving forgiveness with blood sacrifice. And there are ample scriptures describing this as penal substitution.

Lol....I guess it isn't good news for the "old man". But he must go. We must die to the flesh, and if saved we will as we are transformed into the image of Christ, refined as precious metal is refined in a furnace.

But this is what Scripture actually says. We must die to the flesh, to the "old man", to Steve. Abd we must be "made anew", "made new creations".

To view this as we must die with Christ I have no objection at all. It's what we say when we baptize someone. And it is true that those who say "our history ended with Adam" at the cross are correct. It's just that those I know of who say that also believe that the actual thing accomplishing this involves penal substitution.

Penal substitution theorists find this lacking because it does not meet the demand they put on God to punish sins and satisfy their judicial philosophy. So they say "but maybe world can mean some people", "maybe all can bean some", maybe bore means bore instead of us", maybe shated means instead of us".

Some of that is true and it is arguable because some Calvinists insist that they own penal substitution and no one else is allowed to claim it without ascribing to everything else Calvinism says. But that's why I include things on purpose from G. Campbell Morgan, Free Will Baptists, and even have looked at but not quoted William Newell, who is quite against Calvinism, yet they all ascribe to penal substitutionary atonement. That would relate to what the "world" means. As far as "instead of" verses shared I appeal to plain English rendering of the meanings as they stand. In other words, you simply must have substitution if you are willing to say that Jesus bore our sins in himself and the result was that we who were going to bear them ourselves - don't. That simply IS substitution.

 

[JonC]

No one puts a demand on God. But if God reveals things about himself then we have to accept them. I'm not going to go into his attributes again as I know you are well aware of them.

Yes, I am aware. Just, long suffering, forgiving, merciful, etc.

I agree that Penal Substitution Theory absolutely focuses on justice. But at the expense of other things God has revealed about Himself (like forgiving sins based on repentance and belief).

BUT the text of Scripture also upholds God's attributes without dismissing any. God forgives without compromising justice (men must be made new creations in Christ, that which is flesh, what is sin, must perish).

Penal Substitution Theory does make a demand on God, but it is because the theory views God as incurring loss. Anselm said a loss of honor. Aquinas changed that to merit. Calvin changed that to justice.

To view this as we must die with Christ I have no objection at all. It's what we say when we baptize someone. And it is true that those who say "our history ended with Adam" at the cross are correct. It's just that those I know of who say that also believe that the actual thing accomplishing this involves penal substitution

The problem is the criteria we use. Scripture simply does not support Penal Substitution Theory. Don't get me wrong, if you start with Penal Substitution Theory you can always find "support". But the text itself does not offer support.

I have spoken to many who reject the idea Christ died instead of us, or that Jesus suffered God's wrath against our sins laid on Him. But they strongly "believe" Penal Substitution Theory. Why and how? I have no idea. They are reeds in the wind.

Some of that is true and it is arguable because some Calvinists insist that they own penal substitution and no one else is allowed to claim it without ascribing to everything else Calvinism says. But that's why I include things on purpose from G. Campbell Morgan, Free Will Baptists, and even have looked at but not quoted William Newell, who is quite against Calvinism, yet they all ascribe to penal substitutionary atonement. That would relate to what the "world" means. As far as "instead of" verses shared I appeal to plain English rendering of the meanings as they stand. In other words, you simply must have substitution if you are willing to say that Jesus bore our sins in himself and the result was that we who were going to bear them ourselves - don't. That simply IS substitution.

Lol....Calvinists are funny that way. At one time they "owned" Dispensationalism because it was at one time only in Calvinistic circles.

The reason they feel they "own" Penal Substitution Theory is that the "Five Points of Calvinism" are it's necessary conclusion if one is logical. And at one time the only penal substitution theorists were Calvinists.

Calvin reformed Roman Catholic doctrine that Christ was our substitute receiving punishment for our sins. Aquinas focused on merit and carefully defined punishment as "satisfactory punishment" as opposed to "simple punishment".

Aquinas developed the idea that one man could suffer a punishment instead of another if both parties involved were willing and the punishment was satisfactory rather than the actual punishment for sins.

John Calvin was a student of a humanistic judicial philosophy based on Stoic philosophy (you can read his commentary, prior to his conversion, and see how "penal substitution" looks applied to secular justice). After his conversion Calvin simply applied the philosophy to the Atonement.

Calvinism had a huge impact on Western religion. In the US it influenced the Methodists (the largest denomination for awhile) and Baptists split between adopting Presbyterian and Wesleyan theologies. But noth were based on Calvin's view of Atonement.

I'll stop boring you. If you doubt the history then go to the original sources. I beluece you can find Calvin's ore-conversion commentaries online. You certainly can trace the development of Penal Substitution Theory as there was debate over "simple punishment" vs "satisfactory punishment".


The problem is you are making an assumption that Jesus bore our sins and we do not. This is nowhere in the Bibke. In fact, Scrioture is very clear that the one who sins is the only one who can be punished for that sin (@JesusFan accidently posted a verse from that passage). We bear our sin and we experience the wages of that sin, but because of Christ God forgives our sin and we escape the wrath to come (the second death).


Just consider our conversation about death. Scripture names two -

1. "returning to dust" as a consequence of sin because death is produced by sin.
2. "The second death when Sheol and death are cast into the Lake of Fire".

Scripture even calls the latter "the second death" instead of "the third death".

That alone should make you want at least to re-examine your position.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

Now that I think about it, you know enough to realize that everything I said God did in terms of the Atonement, He did.

Ultimately your argument is "that was not enough".

Here is what I mean:

You agree that sin producing death is different from God punishing the wicked.
You agree that Jesus bore our sins.
You agree that God laid our sins on Jesus.
You agree that God makes man a new creation.
You agree that man must die to the flesh.
You agree that man must repent and believe.
You agree that God draws man.
You agree man must be transformed into the image of Christ.
You agree that the Second Death is God's judgment on the wicked.
You ageee that the Second Death is Hell & death being cast into the Lake of Fire
You agree that God gives a new heart and spirit
You agree that God puts His Spirit in us
I think you even agree with all of those passages stating God forgives when we repent and believe.

But you insist that is not enough:

Jesus has to die instead of us
God has to punish sins transferred on Jesus for us to be "forgiven"
Jesus had to suffer God's wrath for our sins

Those three things are not in Scripture, but they are what you use the things we agree on to "support".

And it is those three things that form "penal substitution".

On the other hand, I believe God accomplished redemption through those things we agree on, those things in the text of Gid's Word, in "what is written".


Is there a reason you believe that God making us a new creation maintains the guilt of the "old creation"?

It seems that you have to, at some point, concede that God makes us "not wicked" before the Judgment.

 

[DaveXR650]

Let's look at the two views:

A. God removes the old heart, the old spirit and gives man a new heart and spirit. God puts His Spirit in man. God makes man a new creation, the old passes and the new is established. God transforms man into the image of Christ. Man is born of the Spirit. Man no longer has a mind set on the flesh but a mind set on the Spirit. Man is made into the image of Christ. Man dies to sin. The "old man" dies. The guilty is made not guilty. The unrighteous is made righteous so that at Judgment he is not numbered among the wicked. In Christ there is no condemnation.

B. God must meet the demands of justice, therefore God takes our sins znd transferrs our sins to Jesus. On the cross God punished our sins laid on Jesus satisfying the demands of divine justice and clearing our sin debt. God then takes the man and declares him justified based on the righteousness of Christ. H9d gives the man a new heart and spirit. The man is forgiven, although is still guilty.

My objection here is that you incorrectly separate A and B when in fact they are both true. However in "B" God is not meeting some demand of justice we have conjured but simply acting according to a plan that the Godhead designed and has shared to some extent with us. As for a preoccupation with God demanding justice in penal substitution one must remember that the accusation against Calvinists has always been that it is antinomian and lets people off too freely. Look at Traill's "Justification Vindicated" or Martyn Lloyd-Jones' quote that if you are a preacher and not sometimes accused of antinomianism then you are not preaching the gospel correctly. Or look at the critique of the Calvinist Marrow men or of the Catholic church's reaction to Reformed theology. The free grace of God is indeed acting freely but only penal substitution fully explains the "why" of this.

I can't help it that it seems to me to be clearly in scripture, clearly espoused by Calvinists and groups other than Calvinists, and I am satisfied that the origins of it are found in the writings of early church fathers as well as our canon of scripture itself. I also find that your explanation is unsatisfactory to me of how what looks like clear substitution is not really substitution. That is key because to be honest, I think a denial of penal substitution, that is a denial with a full understanding of the claims it makes and not a denial because of lack of knowledge, would be a damnable heresy. It does not apply to your view because your view is actually substitution but you won't admit the plain meaning to language.

 

[JonC]

My objection here is that you incorrectly separate A and B when in fact they are both true. However in "B" God is not meeting some demand of justice we have conjured but simply acting according to a plan that the Godhead designed and has shared to some extent with us. As for a preoccupation with God demanding justice in penal substitution one must remember that the accusation against Calvinists has always been that it is antinomian and lets people off too freely. Look at Traill's "Justification Vindicated" or Martyn Lloyd-Jones' quote that if you are a preacher and not sometimes accused of antinomianism then you are not preaching the gospel correctly. Or look at the critique of the Calvinist Marrow men or of the Catholic church's reaction to Reformed theology. The free grace of God is indeed acting freely but only penal substitution fully explains the "why" of this.

I can't help it that it seems to me to be clearly in scripture, clearly espoused by Calvinists and groups other than Calvinists, and I am satisfied that the origins of it are found in the writings of early church fathers as well as our canon of scripture itself. I also find that your explanation is unsatisfactory to me of how what looks like clear substitution is not really substitution. That is key because to be honest, I think a denial of penal substitution, that is a denial with a full understanding of the claims it makes and not a denial because of lack of knowledge, would be a damnable heresy. It does not apply to your view because your view is actually substitution but you won't admit the plain meaning to language.

A is "what is written" in God's Word (in the text of Scripture) and if A is true then B is unnecessary.

Also, if B is true then A is unnecessary.

We shouldn't adopt a type of universalism in doctrine (if it can fit together then all is fine type of thinking).

In A every divine attribute pertinent to the Atonement is met. God is just. God justifies. God forgives. God is merciful. God wrath is upon the wicked.


I agree that Calvinists espouse Calvinism. I also agree that theologies of a Calvinist trajectory (like Arminianism l, Amyraldinism) espouse theologies of a Calvivinst trajectory.

But of the Reformers Calvin was probable the worst insofar as reshaping theology to his own philosophy. Baptist churches often suffer from his theology (not only with Penal Substitution Theory).


I don't mind if you call my view "substitution". I don't care about labels.

I believe Christ suffered the wages of sin we suffer, did not bear our sins instead of us. If to you that means "substitution" then so be it. I've even used the legal term "representative substitution" at times.

But you will never convince me that the Atonement as presented in the text of Scripture is lacking because it seems pretty complete to me. You will never convince me that all of those passages stating that God forgives based on repentance and belief are wrong because....well....I can highlight in my Bible that it is true.


When you say "plain meaning" of language you loose the argument. People read things differently. I read the words to mean exactly what the words state. You believe they have some additional meaning.

Experience has a lot to do with it. If I write "check beta at 1400" on a sticky note some may think "beta test" (I would mean beta radiation at 2pm (which anybody I work with would automatically see as the "plain meaning").

Things like "plain meaning", "normal reading", etc. are foolish fillers to prop up what cannot be supported (they are fallacies).

 

[DaveXR650]

A is "what is written" in God's Word (in the text of Scripture) and if A is true then B is unnecessary.

Also, if B is true then A is unnecessary.

We shouldn't adopt a type of universalism in doctrine (if it can fit together then all is fine type of thinking).

In A every divine attribute pertinent to the Atonement is met. God is just. God justifies. God forgives. God is merciful. God wrath is upon the wicked.

First of all, if both are in scripture then we have to include both. If you describe regeneration and repentance and faith and that was all you knew then that would be sufficient. In fact it is sufficient as to that aspect of salvation. "B" includes elements of precisely what Jesus did to secure the possibility of "A", or "A" is the inevitable result of "B" if you are a good Calvinist. However you see it both are needed because both are in scripture.

I don't mind if you call my view "substitution". I don't care about labels.

I believe Christ suffered the wages of sin we suffer, did not bear our sins instead of us. If to you that means "substitution" then so be it. I've even used the legal term "representative substitution" at times.

That's just where we disagree. I do not see how such a conclusion is possible. It is substitution.

But you will never convince me that the Atonement as presented in the text of Scripture is lacking because it seems pretty complete to me. You will never convince me that all of those passages stating that God forgives based on repentance and belief are wrong because....well....I can highlight in my Bible that it is true.

It may not be lacking in the sense that we have been deprived of something we need but it is something too high, too deep, and it is probably out of our ability to fully understand. Jesus had to do it alone and I believe it was significant when he told his disciples to sleep on because he knew he was on his own at that point.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"the wages of sin is death"

Romans 6:22-23. But now, having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.' The Christian is now free from sin and has [right now - John 6:47 etc.] everlasting life. Because Christ has taken our sins upon Himself, and paid the penalty for them in full, God's justice is satisfied and He freely gives us eternal life.

"sin begats death"

But when our sins are taken away by Christ, we are free from death and have, right now, eternal life.

"dust thou art and to dust thou will return"

True, but Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are very much alive in Christ. "He is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22:32).

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

So it is appointed for those without a Redeemer, but not for beilvers in Christ. Hebrews 9:26-28. '[Christ] has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.' For those whose sins He has borne, Christ has put away sin, so they do not come into judgment. "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has [already] passed from death to life" (John 5:24).

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

Indeed. All of us were once dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), but God, 'even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ .......' (Eph. 2:4-5).

made us
"God laid our iniquities on Him"

Amen! And if they were laid on Him they are no longer on us.

"He bore our sins bodily on the tree"

Because He has borne them, we no longer do.

"He shared our infirmity"

By becoming a man.

"By His stripes we are healed"

He suffered to take away our sins. The chastisement [NIV, ESV: 'punishment] for our peace was upon Him.'

 

[JonC]

First of all, if both are in scripture then we have to include both. If you describe regeneration and repentance and faith and that was all you knew then that would be sufficient. In fact it is sufficient as to that aspect of salvation. "B" includes elements of precisely what Jesus did to secure the possibility of "A", or "A" is the inevitable result of "B" if you are a good Calvinist. However you see it both are needed because both are in scripture.

That's just where we disagree. I do not see how such a conclusion is possible. It is substitution.

It may not be lacking in the sense that we have been deprived of something we need but it is something too high, too deep, and it is probably out of our ability to fully understand. Jesus had to do it alone and I believe it was significant when he told his disciples to sleep on because he knew he was on his own at that point.

No. If both are in Scripture then they need to be combined to form one complete picture.

The problem is one (penal substitution theory) is not IN Scripture.

What you are talking about is what you believe Scrioture teaches.
I am talking about what is actually in the text of Scripture..."what is written".

I do not understand how you cannot understand that Jesus bearing our sins does not automatically mamean "instead of us". I could understand you disagreeing, but not to understsnd that bearing something does not automatically mean instead of another...well...I can't help you there. Sleep on it. It may come to you.

And since the actual text makes sense, affirms God's attributes, does not contradict itself..well....I do not need your theory. It'd be a useless addition to what I see as already complete.


What I am saying is much deeper and higher than you realize. It holds God in a higher regard than Penal Substitution. It holds sin as a much worse evil. But you are right that it us not as complex because it lacks tge philosophy of Penal Substitution Theory. I grant it may seem foolish to you. I guess in a way it is so simple that common men can understand redemption.

I admit that as I have studied this is something I appreciate- It is do much deeper than the wisdom of men can reach in philosophy but at the same time it is simple. It is not the academic paper so many look for.

 

[JonC]

But when our sins are taken away by Christ, we are free from death and have, right now, eternal life.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.

Do you believe that passage?

We will experience the death sin produces (we will "return to dust"). God's Word will not fail.


"And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."

This is not talking about non-believers. Read the chapter.

I agree that the chastening for our peace was upon Him.

You are still adding to God's Word.


All of these years I still get a kick out of the fact you cannot disagree with what I believe (because it is in the text of Scripture) and only complain that I reject what you belive the Bible teaches.

That's why I like you. You make arguing fun.


Why do you have an issue with the text of Scripture being what Scripture actually teaches?
Does Scripture, without adding "but this is what it means" really not make sense to you?

 

[DaveXR650]

You agree that God laid our sins on Jesus.

You agree that Jesus bore our sins.

Where you are messing up, and I really don't know what else to say about it, is that I do agree with that list of statements of belief. But this one:

I think you even agree with all of those passages stating God forgives when we repent and believe.

Is BECAUSE of the two from your own list above. There is a ground for God forgiving us when we repent and believe. And that is the work of Christ, which, I must insist, is penal substitution. Those statements above are sufficient to show it by themselves.

On the other hand, I believe God accomplished redemption through those things we agree on, those things in the text of Gid's Word, in "what is written".

Yes. Whether you agree to it or not, the list of things you wrote includes substitutionary atonement. That is the only reason I do not consider you a Socinian heretic. If you seem to believe the principles, I guess it doesn't really matter if you call them something else. I really don't know.

I don't know if you are being deliberately controversial, or if you have some kind of mental block, or what, but you could cause damage to honest Christians on a board, especially since you are listed as a "Moderator". I don't really know of anything else to say on this.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I know what might help you understand what I was saying.

You mentioned Calvinism and their carry over of original sin. Let's go there.


The doctrine the Reformers carried over was pre-Schism Catholic doctrine. They held that we bore Adam's sin (but not instead of Adam.....Adam also bore that sin).

Many maintain that when Adam fell we bore his guilt (but not instead of Adam)

 

[JonC]

I don't know if you are being deliberately controversial, or if you have some kind of mental block, or what, but you could cause damage to honest Christians on a board, especially since you are listed as a "Moderator". I don't really know of anything else to say on ththis.

I am not being deliberately controversial.

I do not believe that Christ suffered divine punishment for our sins.
I do not believe Jesus died instead of us.

I also do not believe we agree in principle. Penal Substitution Theory is unique in that it cannotvexist with any other view of the Atonement without redefining that other view.

For example, you will see penal substitution theorists say "sure, Ransom Theory is one aspect, Jesus gave Himsekf as a Ransom". But they reduce Ransom Theory to something else.

Same with Christus Victor. How many times on sites have we seen penal substitution theorists say "well, nobody believes Christ failed". It's a stupid nothing response.

Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, Moral Influence Theory, Christus Victor, Governmental Theory, Ontological Substitution.....all of these have one important thing in common - they all hold that Jesus suffered the wages of sin alongside mankind under the powers of Satan to free us from the powers of darkness. They all hold that Jesus bore our sins but NOT instead of us. They all hold that Jesus was not punished by God.

They are comparable with one another, but not Penal Substitution Theory.

Penal Substitution Theory stands alone. It is incompatible with Satisfactiin and Substitution theories because it reformed Aquinas' theory (it is not based on divine merit or divine honor).

 

[DaveXR650]

If you study historical theology you will read the belief that we bear Adam's sin. You would never be able to grasp what was being said because you would read (mentally) "we bear Adam's sin instead of Adam bearing his own sin).

No. But if we bore Adam's sin and somehow because of that, Adam did not have to, then that would indeed be substitution. But in the case of Adam, while it is true we bear the consequences of his sin it is not a case of substitution. It really is not even a case of sharing because we aren't sharing a fixed burden but following after in the world that Adam's sin caused. I have always said that you can bear something without it being substitution but that if I bear it with the result that you don't then it is substitution.

Several Reformed members have expressed the belief that we bear Adam's guilt. Again, you would understand that to mean "instead of Adam" and would not understand what they are saying.

I think that is standard Reformed teaching and they then argue whether the guilt is because Adam was our Federal head or if we were genetically connected to Adam and thus could be said to be "in Adam" in that manner. I don't claim to be an expert on that.

When I say Jesus bore our sins but not instead of us bearing our own sin, snd that Jesus did not die instead of us, I belueve that most readers would understand that to be a rejection of substitution.

Look. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that most people would say that if Jesus bore our sins and as a result of him doing that we don't then I think they would say that is clearly "substitution". If he bore our sins with us only, and we still bear them also then yes, you could say no substitution occurred. And I think this is why you keep bringing up the physical dying aspect. Because we do indeed still die physically, you would like to say that that proves no substitutionary atonement. I say that without substitutionary atonement whether we die physically or not, we have sin still as a barrier between us and God and it is unforgiven and will never allow us restored fellowship with a holy God. We can count on looking forward to judgement for our own sins. But Jesus bore the wrath, punishment, and guilt of our sin instead of us and now we don't have to.

Now, because of differences in the way people view this redemption as unfolding, I do think that some non-Calvinists lean in reality to more of a representative substitution, if by that you mean that Christ stood in our place and took all of what God deemed necessary for the reconciliation of the whole world. The difference being that there is not an exact accounting of each specific sin of each specific elect person. That's a whole other issue and I don't really know much on that. To me, as a non-theologian, Jesus standing in our place and taking on God's wrath and expiating all our sin is sufficient for me. Then, all judgement being committed to him, and him able to act as our high priest, we can be saved and forgiven as he applies his own blood to the actual mercy seat or as some explain, he actually is the mercy seat.

And in addition, since I like Owen's writing so much I am well aware that he disagreed and wrote a good rebuttal against what I just said.

 

[JonC]

Look. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that most people would say that if Jesus bore our sins and as a result of him doing that we don't then I think they would say that is clearly "substitution". If he bore our sins with us only, and we still bear them also then yes, you could say no substitution occurred. And I think this is why you keep bringing up the physical dying aspect. Because we do indeed still die physically, you would like to say that that proves no substitutionary atonement. I say that without substitutionary atonement whether we die physically or not, we have sin still as a barrier between us and God and it is unforgiven and will never allow us restored fellowship with a holy God. We can count on looking forward to judgement for our own sins. But Jesus bore the wrath, punishment, and guilt of our sin instead of us and now we don't have to.

Most Christians reject Penal Substitution Theory. Most do not read the passage as you do. Most Christians read Jesus as bearing our dins along side us, coming under the curse with us. Most Christians do not read "substitution". Most who are of a denomination that stems from the Reformed churches do. Traditionally Lutheran's don't, but most Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baotists do.

The only reason I mention this is others see what you cannot. Even if the other view 8s wrong you should consider why you cannot see it. I get where you conclude penal substitution (but I held that position, so it's easy).


Yes...Jesus bore our sins only...not instead of us but with us. No substitution.

Yes, we still have God bearing our sin and suffering the death sin produces.

No, Jesus did not bear the wrath, ounishment and guilt of our sin instead of us.
He suffered the death sin produces. He died and was judged (He is sinless and was vindicated)

We escape the wrath to come because we are forgiven.


1. How many deaths are there per Scripture? There are two -

(1) "returning to dust" as a product of sin
(2)the second death at Judgment when the wicked are judged for "rejecting the Light"

2. How are sins forgiven per Scripture?

Man repents and believes, turns to God and He is faithful to forgive

3. Per Scripture can sins be transferred to another?

No. The person who sins dies, they bear their own guilt.


Look, I understand where you are coming from because most of my Chriatian life I was a penal substitution theorist. I get that you read this into Scrioture because it was difficult for me not to.

I am not trying to change your mind because I have found most (myself for a long time) resist opening up and becoming vulnerable to Scripture. We have beluefs and we guard them, often against truth.

I am asking you, urging you, to please set aside Penal Substitution Theory and read Scrioture until you understand how the text itself (without penal substitution) presents our faith.

Just do it pretending penal substitution is wrong. Once you see and understan then decide which one you will believe.


I am not trying to get people to change their mind. I am trying to get people to understand what they are rejecting, to understand how that position deals with sin. To understand how in that position God is just and justifier.

Then, understanding both, decide which is correct.

That said, I do not know of anybody who came to understand Scripture literally- without penal substitution- and chose Penal Substitution Theory.