1JN.2:2...A.W.Pink

[Silverhair]

So what do you think Christ dying for the ungodly accomplished? Do you think it didn't save? Do you think being reconciled to God by the blood of Christ (Col. 19-22) doesn't mean we are saved?

It made all mankind savable.

Col 1:11-22 was written to believers in Colossae Col 1:2 "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae:..."
So since they are saints that tells us that they had freely trusted in God for their salvation.

Do you think being justified (declared righteous) is not enough to save us.

Well what does the bible tells us?

Rom 5:7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Rom 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

That seems quite clear to me. When we look at the whole of the gospel message we see that it is Christ's death burial and resurrection that comes into play. As Paul said:
1Co 15:17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

So we are saved by the cross of Christ; but more than that, we are saved by His life. That is the sense in which we should read Romans 5:10. Ours is a complete and utterly wonderful salvation, but the cross comes first.

Sure the cross comes first but we do not stop at the cross do we. Without the resurrection none can be saved. It is not Christ on the cross or Christ in the grave but the risen Christ that saves.

The whole worlds sins were covered at the cross and all became savable. If Christ had not been raised then that is where we would have stayed, saveable but lost. We could not earn our salvation through our "good works" so we would have stayed lost, condemned. But He did not stay in the grave but was raised so that those who freely trusted in Him would be saved by the grace of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

When I state God's words you say "well, yea...but it really means....".

I think you are doing that. Jesus bearing our sin in his own body is penal substitution without any further explanation of what it really means. According to your standard we should be done. Which group is it that takes the clear meaning of the Levitical sacrifices and starts explaining what they really mean? I wish they were around when the book of Hebrews was written.

Penal substitution has proof texts like the one above that indicate in their plainest reading - penal substitution. The only thing the theologians have done is ask that you link the Old and New Testament appropriate verses as Jesus and John the Baptist and others did as if the Bible was a coherent meta narrative with themes running through it.

Are you an Anabaptist? That is the closest I can link you to any group that I can identify. I don't think you quite fit into any of the real modern Socinian groups, although I am becoming less sure. You don't have to answer but if I use internet searches the anti-penal substitution guys are way off in other areas as well and it never takes one more than a few minutes to discover. Why are you so evasive in that area? Is it because you don't want to admit being part of some apostate group or is it because you have cooked this up on your own and are really just off by yourself. You have made a lot of accusations of my beliefs and of the whole Calvinist, Provisionist or Traditional Baptists, and Arminians and so I was wondering where you stand. I already know your story of your private illuminations and was just wondering if anyone else has received similar information. I think that is a fair question if you are going to critique all those other groups. Conversing to you is like nailing jello to the wall and you need to come out and identify where you stand.

 

[JonC]

I think you are doing that. Jesus bearing our sin in his own body is penal substitution

Why?

That is my point.

We bear Jesus' righteousness now.

Does that mean Jesus is unrighteous, just sitting there at God's right hand?

God lays Jesus' righteousness on us.

Does that mean God takes Jesus' righteousness away from Him?


You act as if the language demands your theory if it suits you but only if it suits you.

 

[JonC]

Some have affirmed that God could Forgive sin, and Save sinners, without a Satisfaction;

Not without a "satisfaction", but without punishing those sins as this is what "forgiveness" means.

The satisfaction is Christ Himself. Not Christ being punished but Christ Himself as the Propitiation for our sins.

You need to stop riding the fence and decide if Christ is our Propitiation or our penal substitute. You cannot have it both ways.

As it stands you seem to be like a reed in the wind. When talking about God's wrath you seem to think His wrath is propitiated, but then you act as if you think Jesus expressed God's wrath. Both cannot be true.


More importantly, Scripture tells us repeatedly that and how God forgives sins. You and @DaveXR650 tell us those verses do not mean what they say and offer an explanation found nowhere in God's words.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The problem with the theory is it is itself foreign to Scripture. It reaches back to gather passages, but is itself not in the Bible.

Apparently, the Superstitions and Paganism combination that makes up the RC idealism of a False Religion has had the addition of Sentimentality*.

The article at the very bottom tackles a lot of Scriptures; however, this is a resource that tackles some additional thinking that's been going on;

Tyndale Bulletin 70.1 (2019) 95-115
THE COHERENCE OF PENAL SUBSTITUTION
AN EDWARDSEAN DEFENCE
Chris Woznicki
(christopherwoznicki@fuller.edu)

Summary:
Among recent evaluations of Penal Substitutionary Atonement one
significant critique is that given the necessary and sufficient conditions
for punishment, the Doctrine is incoherent. In this essay I defend the
coherence of Penal Substitution by providing an account of Christ’s
relationship to humanity such that it is conceptually possible to meet the
Necessary and Sufficient conditions for punishment. In order to do this, I
turn to Jonathan Edwards’ understanding of creation and identity. I
show that a view called ‘Edwardsean Anti-Criterialism’ provides the
metaphysics necessary for a coherent account of Penal Substitution.

1. Introduction:
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a critical aspect of the Gospel.
Chapter VIII, article V of the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

"The Lord Jesus, by His Perfect Obedience, and Sacrifice of Himself, which
He through the Eternal Spirit, once Offered up unto God, has Fully Satisfied
the Justice of His Father;

"and Purchased not only Reconciliation, but an Everlasting Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, for those whom the Father has Given unto Him.1

"More recently, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution
reaffirming ‘the Truthfulness, Efficacy, and Beauty of the Biblical Doctrine
of Penal Substitutionary Atonement as the burning core of the Gospel
Message and the Only Hope of a fallen race’.2

"This ‘burning core of the Gospel’ has even made its way into evangelical hymnody. P. P. Bliss’s beloved hymn ‘Hallelujah! What a Saviour’ illustrates the centrality of Penal Substitutionary Atonement for understanding the Gospel when it declares,

"Bearing shame and scoffing rude
"In my place Condemned He Stood,
"Sealed my Pardon with His Blood
"Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"

"Such worshipful declarations are meant to inspire greater Love
towards God for the Tremendous Sacrifice made on the cross by Christ.

*For some, however, such declarations do not 'inspire love'.

*Rather, they generate revulsion towards a God
who would sacrifice His Innocent Son, or, at the very least,
they lead to disbelief that Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)
is the best way to understand the Good News of the Gospel.

"*Those who believe that PSA is not fitting of the Good News revealed in the
Gospel have articulated a number of critiques of the view.3 These include
subjective critiques (i.e., critiques concerning the problematic effects
that the doctrine might have on individuals or society) and objective
critiques (i.e., critiques concerning problematic elements of the doctrine
itself).

"One type of objective critique concerns the fittingness of speaking
about God Punishing Christ.

"This type of critique comes in two main forms.

"*The first form of the critique – which dates back at least to Socinus and finds plenty of modern articulators – argues that PSA makes God out to be unjust.

"*The second form of the critique, and perhaps the strongest critique of the Doctrine, argues that it is not fitting to speak of God Punishing Christ because the Punishment of an Innocent Person is conceptually incoherent.

"Briefly stated, the incoherence objection goes as follows.
1) *There are a number of necessary conditions
for an act to count as a punishment.
2) *Penal substitution is conceptually impossible
given some of these necessary and sufficient conditions.
3) *Therefore, it is incoherent to speak of Christ as a ‘Penal’ Substitute.

"In this essay I seek to defend the coherence of PSA by providing an account of Christ’s relationship to humanity such that it is conceptually possible to meet the
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Punishment.

1 See also Chapter VIII, article V of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.
2 The Southern Baptist Convention, ‘On the Necessity of Penal Substitutionary
Atonement’ (2017) TinyURL.com/TB70-Woz-2a (accessed 28 March 2019).

The Coherence of Penal Substitution: An Edwardsean Defence | Published in Tyndale Bulletin

By Christopher Woznicki. Jonathan Edwards’ understanding of creation and identity provides the metaphysics necessary for a coherent account of penal substitution.

doi.org

3 In her recent book The Crucifixion, Fleming Rutledge lists fourteen objections that have been levelled against the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015): 489-506.

Also see PENAL SUBSTITUTION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
A FOCUSED LOOK AT FIRST PETER

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My point is penal substitution, while not denying that man is reconciled to God, does not present Christ as accomplishing this reconciliation on the Cross. His death, to these theorists, is just that first step.

Your point is wrong. We were reconciled to God by the death of Christ (Romans 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18). I don't know of any theologian who denies that.

But the Cross IS the reconciliation of God and man. It was finished.

Exactly.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sure the cross comes first but we do not stop at the cross do we. Without the resurrection none can be saved. It is not Christ on the cross or Christ in the grave but the risen Christ that saves.

The whole worlds sins were covered at the cross and all became savable. If Christ had not been raised then that is where we would have stayed, saveable but lost. We could not earn our salvation through our "good works" so we would have stayed lost, condemned. But He did not stay in the grave but was raised so that those who freely trusted in Him would be saved by the grace of God.

Oh dear! You really are a one trick pony, aren't you? The cross does not work without the resurrection, but the opposite applies. The resurrecction does not work without the cross. Christ did not die to make anyone 'saveable.' We (and that includes you and me, whether you like it or not) were justified - declared righteous - by His blood and shall be saved from wrath by Him. As I wrote before, Christ dies to save sinners; He is raised and ascends into heaven. Then, when God justice is satisfied, Christ sends forth the Holy Spirit. The whole thing is one salvation, and to slice and dice it is an error.

 

[JonC]

Your point is wrong. We were reconciled to God by the death of Christ (Romans 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18). I don't know of any theologian who denies that.

Exactly.

That is what I said.

The death of Christ was not God punishing our sins but the actual reconciliation of man to God, and we urge men to be reconciled to God.

My point is you always speak of the cross as God punishing sins as but never about man actually being reconciled to God.

Christianity does not hold it is our sins that separate us from God but instead that it is that we fall short of God's glory. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8) and sins are the "fruit" of the flesh (Galatians 5).

If Jesus suffered God's punishment for our sins it would not reconcile man to God because we would still fall short of His glory, we would still be of the flesh.


Your theory is too superficial. The cross, the blood of Christ, is too benign in your understanding.

 

[Silverhair]

Oh dear! You really are a one trick pony, aren't you? The cross does not work without the resurrection, but the opposite applies. The resurrecction does not work without the cross. Christ did not die to make anyone 'saveable.' We (and that includes you and me, whether you like it or not) were justified - declared righteous - by His blood and shall be saved from wrath by Him. As I wrote before, Christ dies to save sinners; He is raised and ascends into heaven. Then, when God justice is satisfied, Christ sends forth the Holy Spirit. The whole thing is one salvation, and to slice and dice it is an error.

My My, You really are a one trick pony, aren't you? I have to ask why you want to make the resurrection of no import?
If we were saved by His death then the whole world would be saved as His death covered all our sins.
1Jn 2:2 he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Could the Holy Spirit have made that any clearer?

Of course we could not have the resurrection without His death on the cross. While He was the propitiation of the sin of the whole of mankind and we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son the reality is that we can only be saved by His life.

Why do you stop short of the resurrection? If as you want to say we were saved by His death then you remove the need for the resurrection even though the Holy Spirit disagree with your view.

While reconciliation is universal salvation is not. Reconciliation touches the whole human race. 2Co 5:19 "that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them,..."
Salvation is limited to the few who believe, for salvation depends on faith and belief. Act 16:31 They answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,,,,"
A person may stand before God with every sin covered by the blood of the Son, but if he is still in Adam then death rules over him. There is no hope of resurrection.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why?

That is my point.

We bear Jesus' righteousness now.

Does that mean Jesus is unrighteous, just sitting there at God's right hand?

God lays Jesus' righteousness on us.

Does that mean God takes Jesus' righteousness away from Him?


You act as if the language demands your theory if it suits you but only if it suits you.

You complain about asking the "why" of something because you only use scripture. Then, when I post clear scripture you ask "why". Why would you feel you need to ask about whether Jesus' righteousness is taken away from him as if you can't accept clear scripture that says our sins were laid on him? Stop going in circles and answer the question in post 142. Everyone else on here posts things that are from a school of thought and they post the relevant scripture along with it. You dance around, saying that is just philosophy, except when confronted with clear scripture you start asking "why" and demand further explanation.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Not without a "satisfaction", but without punishing those sins as this is what "forgiveness" means.

No, God doesn't Forgive men without a Commiserate Punishment Laid on a Suitable Substitute, Penally, and God didn't Forgive Jesus of the Ransom Price of the guilt of their sins, otherwise charged to the Elect, since Jesus had Agreed to Pay it and He did.

The satisfaction is Christ Himself. Not Christ being punished but Christ Himself as the Propitiation for our sins.

No, Jesus Body and Soul were Made an Offering for sin, for Satisfaction.

decide if Christ is our Propitiation or our penal substitute.

Jesus became a Propitiatory Sacrifice; upon which God is "Merciful", ilewv, "Propitious" to His people, by His Vicarious and Efficacious Suffering and Death.

You cannot have it both ways.

You can't have baptism, for adults or infants, supposedly supplying 'prevenient grace', or 'common grace', and have Jesus as the Savior, at the same time.

Just like you can't have an 'atonement' that makes it possible for anyone to be saved, which is not an 'atonement' at all, at the same time, there is the Full and Complete Particular Redemption and Definite Atonement by Jesus on the Cross, when Jesus Died for "the sins of His people", Matthew 1:21.

As it stands you seem to be like a reed in the wind. When talking about God's wrath you seem to think His wrath is propitiated, but then you act as if you think Jesus expressed God's wrath. Both cannot be true.

God's Wrath was Propitiated when Jesus Suffered God's Wrath and Died as an Expiatory and Propitiatory Sacrifice.

More importantly, Scripture tells us repeatedly that and how God forgives sins.

Forgives who?

"The doctrine of original sin leads to one of two conclusions: God's Sovereignty in salvation, or an Arminian version of prevenient grace. Both Calvinists and Arminians say they believe in original sin. Adam was the father of the human race, and when he sinned, his sin was imputed to all of his children, including you and me. Adam died spiritually, and all humans ever since have come into the world dead in sin, with no righteousness whatsoever, and no thirst for God at all.

"For Calvinists, the conclusion is simple. Before we can become believers, the heart of stone must be replaced with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:28). Until God works regeneration in a person's heart, faith in Christ for salvation is impossible (John 6:44). But after God regenerates the heart, a person will certainly come to Christ and be saved (John 6:37). Whether dead in sin or alive to Christ, we always choose according to our nature.

"Arminians, though, do not accept the doctrine of election. They do not believe that God is Sovereign over the salvation of people. Therefore, they do not follow the doctrine of original sin to a Calvinistic conclusion. They bypass the Scriptures that speak of God's Sovereign control over whom He will save, and whom He will not. Instead, to fill the gap, they postulate the doctrine of "prevenient grace", which I hope to show is without biblical warrant.

"The word "prevenient" (or "preventing") means "coming before, preceding, or antecedent." According to Wesleyan/Arminianism, God's prevenient grace counteracts our total deadness in sin, but doesn't totally regenerate us either.

"According to Arminians, God awakens us even in our unregenerate state, so that all sinners have a real "chance" to turn to God for salvation. But Arminian prevenient grace does not guarantee salvation. According to Arminians, God gives prevenient grace to everybody, hoping that some will respond and be saved, but knowing that most will choose to return to spiritual death.

"The Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace fits into their overall scheme of theology and enables them to maintain the doctrine of original sin and yet reject God's Sovereignty in salvation, therefore rejecting unconditional election as well.

"But the biggest problem with Arminian "prevenient grace" is that there is no clear Biblical support for it. Not once does Scripture speak of prevenient grace that "enables" salvation without also assuring salvation. The doctrine seems nice to Arminians, but can be found nowhere in the Bible.

"One of the key reasons "prevenient grace" sounds so nice to people is because it implies God's desire for *every* person to be saved. But does the Bible teach that this is really God's desire? If we can clearly show from Scripture that God does *not* desire the salvation of all people, then we will have succeeded in greatly weakening the unbiblical doctrine of "prevenient grace"."

From: Is Prevenient Grace in the Bible?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You and @DaveXR650 tell us those verses do not mean what they say and offer an explanation found nowhere in God's words.

First, with "Propitiation": the first time we meet with this word, and as applied to Christ, is in #Ro 3:25. "Whom God hath Set Forth to be a Propitiation"; which identifies God to be the Author of Propitiation; for God's Sake, and on Account of what Jesus was to Do and Suffer, God would be Propitious to men--His Justice would be Appeased--and He would be at Peace with them who were Godless sinners; Laying Aside all marks of Displeasure, Anger, and Resentment against them: because this was Christ's Work as Mediator;

"Jesus Drew Nigh to God, and Treated with Him about Terms of Peace, and Entered into Measures of Peace with Him;

"Interposed between Justice and Them, Jesus became a Mediator between God and man, to Bring them God and man together; hence Jesus has the Names of Shiloh, the Prince of Peace, the Man the Peace, and Jesus our Peace, Who has Made both One: while at the same time, Jesus is the Propitiatory Sacrifice for sin;

"such hilastic, propitiatory, and expiatory sacrifices were under the Law and were, of course, Typical of the Expiatory and Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ; and as God in those Typical sacrifices Smelled a Sweet Savour of Rest as being Types of Christ; so Jesus' Sacrifice was an Offering of a Sweet Smelling Savour to God the Father and God was Well Pleased with Jesus' Sacrifice.

"The Sacrificial Death of Jesus gave God the Father great Contentment and Satisfaction, because His Justice was Appeased by that actual Real Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, and the Demands of God's Law were Answered, yea, God's Law was Magnified and Made Honourable;

"the word used in the above text ilasthrion*, is the same which the Greek version of #Ex 25:21 and which the Apostle, in #Heb 9:5 use of the Mercy Seat; which, with the Cherubim upon it, and the Ark, with the Law therein under it, to which it was a lid or cover, formed a Seat for the Divine Majesty; and which was an emblem of His Mercy and Justice Shining in the Atonement made by Christ, which this exhibited to view; and gave encouragement to draw nigh to this Mercy Seat, or Throne of Grace, in hope of finding Grace and Mercy, and enjoying Communion with God:

"a glimpse of this the poor publican had, when he said, "God be Merciful", ilasyhti, "Propitious, to me a sinner!" or be Merciful to me, through the Propitiation of the Messiah.

"Now Christ was "Set Forth" to be the Propitiation in the Purposes and Decrees of God, proeyeto, God "Foreordained" Jesus, as He was Foreordained to be the Lamb Slain, as the Ransom Price and Propitiatory Sacrifice; whose Sufferings and Death, which were the Sacrifice, were according to the Determinate Counsel and Foreknowledge of God, #1Pe 1:19 Ac 2:23 4:28

"and Jesus was Set Forth in the Promises and Prophecies spoken of by all the Holy Prophets that were from the beginning of the World; as the Seed of the woman that should Bruise the serpent's head, Destroy him and his works, among which this is a principal one, making an End of sin, by a Complete Atonement for sin;

"and Jesus was Set Forth as such in the Types and Shadows of the Law, the trespass offerings, and sin offerings, which are said to bear the sins of the congregation, and to make atonement for them; which were Typical of Christ, Who was Made an Offering for sin, Bore the sins of many, and Made Atonement for them, #Le 10:17

"and Jesus has been Set Forth, in the Fulness of Time, in the Exhibition of Him, in Human Nature, in which He was Manifested to Take Away sin; and He has Put it Away, and even Abolished sin, by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Himself;

"and Jesus is still Set Forth in the Gospel, as the sin Bearing and sin Atoning Saviour who has Satisfied Law and Justice, and Made Peace by the Blood of His Cross; and therefore Jesus' Propitiatory Sacrifice is called the Word of Reconciliation, the Gospel of Peace, and the Word Preaching Peace by Jesus Christ, Who is Lord of all.

"There are two other places where Christ is spoken of as ilasmov, the "Propitiation"; and these are in the First Epistle of the Apostle John; in one of them, #1Jo 4:10 it is said, "God sent His Son to be the Propitiation of our sins";

"that is, God Sent Him in Human Nature, to Offer Up Soul and Body as a Sacrifice, and thereby Make Expiation of sin, and Full Atonement for sin;

"and in the other it is said, #1Jo 2:9; "And He is the Propitiation for our sins", the sins both of Jews and Gentiles; for which Jesus is become a Propitiatory Sacrifice; upon which God is "Merciful", ilewv, "Propitious" to His people, notwithstanding all their "unrighteousness, sins, and transgressions", or is "Pacified towards them for all that they have done", #Heb 8:12 Eze 16:63."

From: His By Grace--"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"-Doctrinal Book 6, Chapter 6

​

*2435. hilastérion►

​

Lexical Summary hilastérion: Propitiation, Atonement Cover, Mercy Seat Original Word: ἱλαστήριον Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter Transliteration: hilastérion Pronunciation: hē-lä-stā'-rē-on Phonetic Spelling: (hil-as-tay'-ree-on) KJV: mercyseat, propitiation NASB: mercy seat, propitiation Word Origin: [neuter of a derivative of G2433 (ἱλάσκομαι - make propitiation)] 1. an expiatory (place or thing) 2. (concretely) an atoning victim 3. (especially) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple)​

 

[JesusFan]

No, it does not.

And you did not take the time to consider what I posted or Scripture. You just fired off a meaningless response. Take your time. Slow down and think next time.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement looks to God as punishing our sins on Christ in order for us not to be punished.

It is very superficial and presents the blood of Christ - the cross itself - as merely addressing the "bad fruits" (sins) of a
"bad trees" (natural man) and afterwards these "bad trees" dying and being made into "good trees" (righteous) that would mot be cast into the fire anyway.

The theory considers Christ's blood as an exercise in accounting but of no actual redemptive worth.

What gives God the glory is Christ actually accomplishing the reconciliation God says it accomplished with the blood of Christ.

Not its all to do with God, not us, as the father has stored up for all sinners a cup of wrath and judgement, and he can ONLY declare us to be right with him due to either us or someone in our stead take from Him that wrath and condemnation and have it satisfied/paid in full.

We can do nothing to get born again, as the Trinity Themselves fully did what was required to have lost sinners redeemed, as the father sent the Son, who bore upoin Himself in his body our very sin debt and receiving in Himself what we all were due, and the Holy Spirit came into the world to make sure all who were atoned for were saved and redeemed now back to God the father

 

[JesusFan]

Yep. A superficial view of atonement expressed in a superficial confession for superficial Christians seeking an easy-believism form of Christianity.

The death of God in human flesh as the payment required to appease the very wrath of Holy God towards lost sinners, who tasted for us physical death and separation from the Father is superficial?

 

[JesusFan]

Do you believe that Paul was somehow mixed-up when he wrote 1 Cor. 2:2? And the writer of Hebrews mistaken when he wrote Heb. 9?
I have no time at present to write a treatise on Rom. 5:10, but you will find that, properly understood, it will not contradict the other texts.

One more point: I do not believe that Penal Substitution is a Calvinist Doctrine. Many non-Calvinists uphold it. I don't want to put words into the mouth of @Charlie24 but I believe he upholds PSA and he is certainly not a Calvinist. Also, as an unapologetic Calvinist, I believe that the Cal vs. Arm debate is of far less importance than the question of PSA. Although I don't agree with it, and don't mind a discussion about it, Arminianism is an orthodox belief and we have very dear members of our church who take that understanding. Pelagianism, of course, is another matter.

Excellent point here, as the PSA view of the atonement is the view endorsed and help by conservative Cals and Non Cals alike, as in that doctrine a spurgeon and a Wesley, a Sproul and a Ryrie, a Tozier and a Hodge can find full agreement

 

[JesusFan]

Yep. Charles Ryrie, in his book, Basic Theology, used as a text book at Cedarville College in Ohio is an example. He might be considered somewhat Calvinist, maybe even somewhat on the free grace side, but definitely against limited atonement - said this:
"While there may be truth in views that do not include penal substitution, it is important to remember that such truth, if there be some, cannot save eternally. Only the substitutionary death of Christ can provide that which God's justice demands and thereby become the basis for the gift of eternal life to those who believe."

Among non-Calvinist Baptists in my area he is highly thought of. I even have a study Bible with his notes. This also is very true:

This is the most important thing said on here in a while. It is a big deal.

Since the reformation time, and indeed way before that time, conservative Christians have held to the Psa atonement view as the primary one, and required reading should be for all the Cross of Christ, By John Stott

 

[JonC]

You complain about asking the "why" of something because you only use scripture. Then, when I post clear scripture you ask "why". Why would you feel you need to ask about whether Jesus' righteousness is taken away from him as if you can't accept clear scripture that says our sins were laid on him? Stop going in circles and answer the question in post 142. Everyone else on here posts things that are from a school of thought and they post the relevant scripture along with it. You dance around, saying that is just philosophy, except when confronted with clear scripture you start asking "why" and demand further explanation.

Because you do not post scripture stating what you believe. You have a very bad habit of avoiding questions and jumping around.

You demands we accept that your theory is the necessary meaning. You use fallacies ("clear Scripture") so I already know you ate blowing smoke.


If the language means God removed our sins from us and put on Jesus THEN the language means Jesus is now unrighteous.

So explain HOW you get from God's words to your theory. Stop assuming. Stop blowing smoke. Account for your faith.

 

[JonC]

Since the reformation time, and indeed way before that time, conservative Christians have held to the Psa atonement view as the primary one, and required reading should be for all the Cross of Christ, By John Stott

No, nobody believed penal substitution before Calvin. Ecen Calvinist theologians claim the elements were there but know it did not exist until Calvin. And Luther was conservative (he did not hold Penal Substitution theory).

 

[JonC]

The death of God in human flesh as the payment required to appease the very wrath of Holy God towards lost sinners, who tasted for us physical death and separation from the Father is superficial?

Yes. It is very superficial (it addresses the "fruiits" of our problem, not the problem itself). And it makes God unholy (ir means God separates not from evil but from the actions evil does).

You already said as much yourself when YOU offered that Christ's death was the first step that allows God to reconcile man.

 

[DaveXR650]

The bottom line is I say God's words mean what they say.

When I state God's words you say "well, yea...but it really means....".

You never explain how you get from what God's words say to what you think it really means.

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree". When I state God's words you ignore it as in the post above. There's no "what it really means" here. That is penal substitution, stated clearly. It is not the sum total of what the atonement is - but no attempt to explain the atonement is complete without it.

If nothing else your answers (or non-answers) show what happens when someone claims at least to have some special insight on something. I think that in reality you are using a lot of the information from the Anabaptist theological site because a lot of your answers look similar to what they say. But you can't admit that after all the criticism of those of us who make use of creeds or theological writings. Their own writings correctly say that they as a group are all over the place and not organized. And they say some were not opposed to penal substitution. There are too many people posting at once so I'll leave this thread to you. It's sad you won't admit to what you are getting your info from. Especially if it's Anabaptists. My neighbors used to be Amish, and I grew up in a Missionary Church directly descended from Mennonites so I have a lot of respect for what they try to do.