PSA

[Ben1445]

A view of Penal substitution.

Interested in your thoughts on this article.
It’s a hot topic right now. So I have been reading extra on it.


On a side note, could it be that God has done so much that one person’s perception of atonement doesn’t cover the amount of work accomplished by the work of Christ on the cross?

I don’t care who posts here. I am interested in any opinions here.

 

[JonC]

How do you define PSA?

 

[DaveXR650]

Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever.

That's from the article, which I had read before. That definition is a good simple one and it works.

 

[Charlie24]

Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever.

That's from the article, which I had read before. That definition is a good simple one and it works.

There are many things I believe and keep them to myself, it's conjecture and I can't easy prove it from Scripture.

I normally don't offer such, but I will in this case.

Now remember this is conjecture.

If God just let sin go without punishing it, as some believe He does, then legally man has a green light to go and sin without responsibility of that sin. I believe the sin's I commit as a believer are transferred to Christ by grace. They are not just overlooked and forgotten.

It's true in the sight of God I have no sin being in Christ by grace through faith, but my sin's as a believer will be revisited on the day I stand before the Judgement seat of Christ. Those sin's are not counted against me in unbelief, but in degrees of unfaithfulness.

Those sin's are recorded, I believe, and will play a role in the rewards Christ has prepared for us.

I can't prove this per se, but this is what I gather from the Word of God.

 

[Charlie24]

There are many things I believe and keep them to myself, it's conjecture and I can't easy prove it from Scripture.

I normally don't offer such, but I will in this case.

Now remember this is conjecture.

If God just let sin go without punishing it, as some believe He does, then legally man has a green light to go and sin without responsibility of that sin. I believe the sin's I commit as a believer are transferred to Christ by grace. They are not just overlooked and forgotten.

It's true in the sight of God I have no sin being in Christ by grace through faith, but my sin's as a believer will be revisited on the day I stand before the Judgement seat of Christ. Those sin's are not counted against me in unbelief, but in degrees of unfaithfulness.

Those sin's are recorded, I believe, and will play a role in the rewards Christ has prepared for us.

I can't prove this per se, but this is what I gather from the Word of God.

The bottom line of my above post is that whether saved or unsaved, sin is going to cost you!

 

[Charlie24]

The bottom line of my above post is that whether saved or unsaved, sin is going to cost you!

The problem with my post is the depth of content involved, the variables and conditions. The reason I try to keep myself from such things.

Let me try to clean up some of those variables.

The Scripture says God will separate our sin as far as the east from the west from us and remember them no more. That's a fact of Scripture and seems to contradict what I've said. This is what I want to address.

This follows in line with John when he said, If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins..."

But not all of us who are born-again make an attempt to confess our sin's and guard against it.

My post concerns the "heart of man," where his heart is in guarding against sin and the one who does not guard against it.

The one who doesn't put on the armor in faithfulness against sin can be saved by grace through faith, but he will suffer loss at the Judgement Seat.

Paul tells us in 1 Cor 3 that "Every man's works shall be revealed" and this covers everything we did or didn't do for Christ. The rewards are given on this basis, faithfulness and motivation in the things of Christ, if it passes His sifting through the fire in truth.

 

[JonC]

Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever.

That's from the article, which I had read before. That definition is a good simple one and it works.

Thank you. It is important that we define terms.

Yes, by that definition every Christian holds PSA.

We all believe Christ died in our place.
We all believe He bore our sins.
We all believe He bore the penalty of our sins.

Some seem to think that PSA defines Christ dying in our place as a substitution (instead of us) rather than representative substitution (a second type of Adam).

Some seem to think this penalty was God's wrath or punishment against sin rather than Satan's punishment which we would justly suffer but He unjustly suffered.


Do you have a way of distinguishing those differences within PSA?


The issue I have understanding your definition is you, on the ECF thread, said the same thing but with the exclusion that believing what the Early Church wrote (that this punishment was Satan's wrath) meant it was not PSA - a more narrow definition.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A view of Penal substitution.

Interested in your thoughts on this article.
It’s a hot topic right now. So I have been reading extra on it.


On a side note, could it be that God has done so much that one person’s perception of atonement doesn’t cover the amount of work accomplished by the work of Christ on the cross?

I don’t care who posts here. I am interested in any opinions here.

Wow! The posts on Penal Substitution come think and fast and I just can't keep up with them!
I am preaching tomorrow; I have Christmas services to lead; I am going to be leading a door-to-door outreach in the New Year and I have five R'E' lessons to take at a local school (yes, we can do that in the UK if the schools will have us!). I can't give the topic the attention that it absolutely deserves.

However, I do think we need to get away from the idea that God just wanted to punish Christ which is what seemed to be the main criticism of the article. It was love that brought the Lord Jesus to the cross. 'For so God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son...'

But God cannot be unjust (e.g. Deut. 32:4), and He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). Therefore the Lord Jesus was set forth willingly as a propitiation ( an offering to appease God's righteous anger against sin) so that God could be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Rom. 3:25-26).

But the topic deserves more than two paragraphs, so I offer this extended post which I posted here about nine or ten years ago, and then put on my blog because no one wanted to interact with it, so quite a few folk may have missed it. Have a read! The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

 

[DaveXR650]

The issue I have understanding your definition is you, on the ECF thread, said the same thing but with the exclusion that believing what the Early Church wrote (that this punishment was Satan's wrath) meant it was not PSA - a more narrow definition.

Not sure if I'm understanding your question there but we know from scripture that Jesus was turned over to and abused and killed by wicked men. And I assume Satan was involved.

So I can accept that as being true in that sense. But what I have been trying to say is that there has to be an awareness that what Christ suffered has a connection with what we justly deserve as a judgement of God and the violent death of Christ on the cross reflected the wrath that God feels toward our sin as it was put on Christ. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" I don't think is referring to Satan.

 

[DaveXR650]

"Let a person be told, as scripture teaches, that he was estranged from God by sin, an heir of wrath, exposed to the curse of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, a complete alien from the blessing of God, the slave of Satan, captive under the yoke of sin; in time, doomed to horrible destruction, and already involved in it; that then Christ interposed, took the punishment upon himself, and bore what by the just judgement of God was impending over sinners; with his own blood expiated the sins which rendered them hateful to God, by this expiation satisfied and duly propitiated God the Father, by this intercession appeased his anger, on this basis founded peace between God and men, and by this tie secured the Divine benevolence toward them; will not these considerations move him the more deeply, the more strikingly they represent the greatness of the calamity from which he was delivered".

That's a good detailed explanation of PSA. If you notice it has some Ransom elements in it as we were slaves of Satan, and it has some of the modern idea that the love and mercy shown should induce us to respond (will not these considerations move him more deeply). But most importantly, I think it brings out the problem with using the early church fathers too much on this. They were developing this, as @Martin Marprelate has generously provided evidence for with quotes, but for several well known reasons, they were most interested in the cosmic aspects of the atonement. PSA is essential if you want to fully understand the role of your personal sinfulness and how it affects your relationship with God.

By the way, that's from Calvin, who for some reason is out of fashion now. I blame the Young Restless and Reformed. They were sometimes obnoxious, and have moved on now into woke politics for the most part. Calvin is surprisingly easy to read and on line for free or on your Kindle for a couple of bucks.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is from Turretin and not a complete PSA but a foundational statement.
"God neither has willed, nor could have willed to forgive sins, without a satisfaction made to his justice".

This is the key to the origin of a lot of the disagreement. The Socinians, who Owen and Turretin spent a lot of ink fighting are astoundingly similar in their arguments to some of the guys on here that hate penal substitution. William Lane Craig notes that and then lists exactly what he means by it. I noticed it from reading Owen against Socinus. Most of their arguments are literally word for word. I think it's the reason for my gut reaction to loath those who attack PSA, fair or not.

 

[JonC]

This is from Turretin and not a complete PSA but a foundational statement.
"God neither has willed, nor could have willed to forgive sins, without a satisfaction made to his justice".

This is the key to the origin of a lot of the disagreement. The Socinians, who Owen and Turretin spent a lot of ink fighting are astoundingly similar in their arguments to some of the guys on here that hate penal substitution. William Lane Craig notes that and then lists exactly what he means by it. I noticed it from reading Owen against Socinus. Most of their arguments are literally word for word. I think it's the reason for my gut reaction to loath those who attack PSA, fair or not.

For those who don't know....Turretin was a 17th century Reformed theologian. I think he was Italian. Italian or French. It has been awhike since I read Reformed theologians.

Just mentioning this as Turretin is not as popular or known as men like Owen, Knox, and Beza.


There is no problem with PSA as you defined it. Every Christian believes that version.

 

[JonC]

Not sure if I'm understanding your question there but we know from scripture that Jesus was turned over to and abused and killed by wicked men. And I assume Satan was involved.

So I can accept that as being true in that sense. But what I have been trying to say is that there has to be an awareness that what Christ suffered has a connection with what we justly deserve as a judgement of God and the violent death of Christ on the cross reflected the wrath that God feels toward our sin as it was put on Christ. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" I don't think is referring to Satan.

"Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever."

We all believe the above.

On the thread about the ECF's you added to that.

 

[DaveXR650]

"Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever."

We all believe the above.

That was quoted from the OP article cited. I agree with it too. The definition by Calvin I think covers it completely. And I think here is where you are wrong as explained by Stott.
"The cross was not a commercial bargain with the devil, let alone one which tricked and trapped him; nor an exact equivalent, a quid pro quo to satisfy a code of honor or technical point of law; nor a compulsory submission by by God to some moral authority above him from which he could not otherwise escape; nor punishment of a meek Christ by a harsh and punitive Father; nor a procurement of salvation by a loving Christ by a mean and reluctant Father, nor an action of the Father which bypassed Christ as Mediator."
All those things, whether from you or the ECF's or from a modern Calvinist are mistaken ways of looking at this.

 

[kyredneck]

I hate PSA with a passion.

my gut reaction to loath those who attack PSA

...so much hate, from ones that will spend eternity in glory together with The Savior...

 

[DaveXR650]

On the thread about the ECF's you added to that.

Now some of that above post will hopefully correct some of the mess that the ECF's caused as well as some of the preaching and illustrations and songs well intentioned modern churchmen use.
Here's the clarification:
"Instead, the righteous, loving Father humbled himself to become in and through his only Son flesh, sin and a curse for us, in order to redeem us without compromising his own character. The theological words 'satisfaction' and 'substitution' need to be carefully defined and safeguarded, but they cannot in any circumstances be given up. The biblical gospel of atonement is of God satisfying himself by substituting himself for us."
It is there where I bolded the quote that differentiates me and @JonC . Our offense and jeopardy is with God the Father himself. To try to paint this as a battle with Satan, although true at some level, as a means to overshadow that fact is where I have real problems.

 

[DaveXR650]

...so much hate, from ones that will spend eternity together with the Savior...

Let's not do partial quotes. You're not looking for a job with the BBC are you?

This is the key to the origin of a lot of the disagreement. The Socinians, who Owen and Turretin spent a lot of ink fighting are astoundingly similar in their arguments to some of the guys on here that hate penal substitution. William Lane Craig notes that and then lists exactly what he means by it. I noticed it from reading Owen against Socinus. Most of their arguments are literally word for word. I think it's the reason for my gut reaction to loath those who attack PSA, fair or not.

The key to the quote is that they are using word for word arguments from the Socinians. The Socinians kept going and I doubt if any of them will avoid Hell in the end. But the arguments are very much the same and those moving in that direction should be cognizant of that, for what it's worth.

 

[kyredneck]

Let's not do partial quotes.

Brevity to make a point, quickly concisely.

Unlike your 10,000 word bloviated 'word salads', that leaves one scratching their heads still wondering what it is you actually believe.

 

[DaveXR650]

I don’t care who posts here. I am interested in any opinions here.

Now here is a common problem and it explains I think why the ECF's had some weird views, as well as our friends, the Socinians, and even some of the clumsy modern evangelicals of today.
"Any notion of penal substitution in which three independent actors play play a role - the guilty party, the punitive judge and the innocent victim - is to be repudiated with the utmost vehemence. It would not only be unjust in itself but would also reflect a defective Christology. For Christ is not an independent third person, but the eternal Son of the Father, who is one with the Father in his essential being." Stott, again.

In other words, there are some common ways of expressing penal substitution that are misplaced at best as well as understandings of the Godhead and the Trinity which PSA depends on. And of course there are deliberate heresies modern as well as ancient.

 

[DaveXR650]

Unlike your 10,000 word 'word salads', that leaves one scratching their heads still wondering what it is you actually believe,

There is no reason for you to come on here with this crap. If you can't understand the level of discussion then post somewhere else. This thread is about PSA and opinions were asked for and as far as I know a word limit was not included. And as soon as Monday rolls around get that medicine refilled.