Penal Substitution Atonement (explain and discuss)

[JonC]

Where exactly have I asserted that Owen did not hold PSA?

I used Paul Enns definition, which you accepted as PSA. But I added John Owen's definition of the cross to clarify the punishment. You said that was not PSA.

If I misunderstood then my apologies.

Start again:

Jesus taking the penalty for humanity's sins by experiencing God's punishment instead of us, as our substitute and for our debt, on the cross, thereby satisfying God's justice and enabling God to reconcile us to Himself.

Why is the above not PSA?

 

[JonC]

The Calvinists view PSA as a payment made only for the Elect, that's where I get off the train.

I believe the atonement was the reconciliation payment for sin for the entire world.

Limited Atonement is not found in my Bible.

I also believe the atonement was the reconciliation for sin for the entire world.

Calvinists who affirm limited atonement would object because that means those who remain condemned already have their sins paid by Christ.

Obviously limited atonement is not in the Bible (the scope of the Atonement was a topic after John Calvin's death).

PSA is also not in the Bible (it is reasoned ftom the Bible).

The argument is - PSA is reasoned from Scripture, and if it is correct then limited atonement has to be correct because it is reasoned from PSA.

If you look back, it is a long line of reasoning. Anselm reasoned one view, Aquinas reasoned from what he saw correct in Aquinas' reasoning, Calvin did the same, Beza reasoned from Calvin, and so on.

You just jumped off the train before it got to limited atonement.

 

[JesusFan]

With PSA the wrath of God comes before the judgment of God (most who hold PSA believe Jesus suffered our wrath but also that we will be raised Incorruptible before the judgment).

The wicked store up wrath for themselves for the day of wrath. Those who put to death their "old self" and are a new creation in Christ do not face God's wrath.

Where it comes into the Atonement is in Christ being this new type of man (the Second Adam) that we will become.

In order though to have the father able to forgive and justify sinners, their stored up wrath had to be accounted for before He could make them new creatures in Christ Jesus

 

[Charlie24]

I also believe the atonement was the reconciliation for sin for the entire world.

Calvinists who affirm limited atonement would object because that means those who remain condemned already have their sins paid by Christ.

Obviously limited atonement is not in the Bible (the scope of the Atonement was a topic after John Calvin's death).

PSA is also not in the Bible (it is reasoned ftom the Bible).

The argument is - PSA is reasoned from Scripture, and if it is correct then limited atonement has to be correct because it is reasoned from PSA.

If you look back, it is a long line of reasoning. Anselm reasoned one view, Aquinas reasoned from what he saw correct in Aquinas' reasoning, Calvin did the same, Beza reasoned from Calvin, and so on.

You just jumped off the train before it got to limited atonement.

There is no atonement theory that can be absolutely proven from Scripture.

I disagree that if PSA is correct then limited atonement has to be correct.

Whether the atonement was for only the Elect or for the entirety of humanity the theme of PSA is the same.

Christ took the punishment of man including the wrath of God on man through The Man, Jesus Christ.

 

[JesusFan]

This is absolutely true. The conclusion that God punished the righteous, or cleared the wicked, coukd not forgive sins based on repenrance, would place men under this curse.

I have not considered that before. Maybe people continue doing that because they are given over to a curse...they have been abandoned in their own understanding.

The basis of tha father being able to forgive justify save lost sinners is due to Jesus taking in His Body and upon himself what they must endure if remained sinners

 

[JesusFan]

There is no atonement theory that can be absolutely proven from Scripture.

I disagree that if PSA is correct then limited atonement has to be correct.

Whether the atonement was for only the Elect or for the entirety of humanity the theme of PSA is the same.

Christ took the punishment of man including the wrath of God on man through The Man, Jesus Christ.

My friend, do not get bogged down with limited/unlimited atonement views, as its the essential truth that Psa is the view that represents Pauline Justification that really is all important

 

[JesusFan]

I also believe the atonement was the reconciliation for sin for the entire world.

Calvinists who affirm limited atonement would object because that means those who remain condemned already have their sins paid by Christ.

Obviously limited atonement is not in the Bible (the scope of the Atonement was a topic after John Calvin's death).

PSA is also not in the Bible (it is reasoned ftom the Bible).

The argument is - PSA is reasoned from Scripture, and if it is correct then limited atonement has to be correct because it is reasoned from PSA.

If you look back, it is a long line of reasoning. Anselm reasoned one view, Aquinas reasoned from what he saw correct in Aquinas' reasoning, Calvin did the same, Beza reasoned from Calvin, and so on.

You just jumped off the train before it got to limited atonement.

All limit the atonement to some degree except for Universalists

 

[Charlie24]

My friend, do not get bogged down with limited/unlimited atonement views, as its the essential truth that Psa is the view that represents Pauline Justification that really is all important

What limited atonement view? Where is that in Scripture?

That is present only in theory and an interpretation taken to form that theory.

 

[JonC]

There is no atonement theory that can be absolutely proven from Scripture.

I disagree.

The Classic view can be proven from Scripture. The complaint people have with it is not that it is not the text of Scripture but that it is incomplete and does not align with other theories.

 

[Charlie24]

I disagree.

The Classic view can be proven from Scripture. The complaint people have with it is not that it is not the text of Scripture but that it is incomplete and does not align with other theories.

See what I mean by nothing to be gained?

This will continue to the Second Coming and we will still be disagreeing.

 

[DaveXR650]

This one: "Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever." It is the view of the Atonement even those who strongly oppose PSA believes.

That isn't that bad of a definition. It's not my fault that some who strongly oppose PSA believe a bonified definition of PSA. A definition doesn't mean nothing else could be said about the subject.

YOU were the one who objected to "humanity's sins" not me. I did not come up with "humanity's sins". They did.

Your disagreement is with them because you find their definition of PSA ignorant. I do not even hold the theory.

Jon. Why do you insist on always poisoning the discussion? My objection was only that a strict Calvinist like Owen would prefer the elect to "humanity" so as not to make people think that the sins of someone who would never be saved, and in fact as Owen said, may even already be in hell, would have his sins atoned for by Christ. Then you say, which you have no right to say, that I find their definition ignorant.

 

[JonC]

@Charlie24

Another illustration just to show the difference:

You plant a orchard on the site of your future home. Your enemy corrupts the initial tree which corrupts the soil. All of the trees are bad trees producing bad fruit. These trees will die sooner or later.

You have an incorruptable seed which you plant in the orchard. It grows. It suffers under the poison of your enemy but always produces good fruit. Because of the poison it also dies, but it grows back incorruptible to the poison as a new kind of tree. The seeds it produces is life. If it affects the other trees it will make them like it is. Those trees will die but come back Incorruptible just like that new kind of tree.

You are going to judge those trees before you dwell in the orchard. The dead ones will be cut down and burned. Only the good ones will remain.


PSA version:

Same scenario. But to save the bad trees you consider the good tree to be the one bearing bad fruit. So you cut down the good tree to satisfy your requitement that only good trees remain when you move to the orchard.

Now you have all bad trees, but you look upon them as if they are good trees.

Some say you would then send another who could vaccinate the trees so that they would make good fruit by the time you move in.

 

[JonC]

See what I mean by nothing to be gained?

This will continue to the Second Coming and we will still be disagreeing.

Lol...no, I don't see because nobody has provided what of my view is not in the biblical text.

I am not saying what we might think the text teaches (like I insist God forgives sins while PSA holds this is impossible as God must punish sins...I can provide my view in the biblical text).

 

[DaveXR650]

I know you do not understand how. You did not understand how the Classic view could mean anything but God forgiving sins because we say "I'm sorry" either.

Maybe I misunderstood you but I thought that has been one of your go to responses. While I was typing this came up:

(like I insist God forgives sins while PSA holds this is impossible as God must punish sins...I can provide my view in the biblical text).

So please clarify. Are you or are you not saying that simple repentance on our part is all that is necessary for forgiveness of sins?

 

[JonC]

That isn't that bad of a definition. It's not my fault that some who strongly oppose PSA believe a bonified definition of PSA. A definition doesn't mean nothing else could be said about the subject.

So, per your definition:

Believing the atonement was Christ submitting Himself to suffer under the bondage of sin and death by the power and authority of Satan, not instead of us but as a representation of the human race, and never under the punishment of God is PSA???

You say all of us believe PSA, but that is because you make the theory so vague that it accommodates every view.

 

[Charlie24]

@Charlie24

Another illustration just to show the difference:

You plant a orchard on the site of your future home. Your enemy corrupts the initial tree which corrupts the soil. All of the trees are bad trees producing bad fruit. These trees will die sooner or later.

You have an incorruptable seed which you plant in the orchard. It grows. It suffers under the poison of your enemy but always produces good fruit. Because of the poison it also dies, but it grows back incorruptible to the poison as a new kind of tree. The seeds it produces is life. If it affects the other trees it will make them like it is. Those trees will die but come back Incorruptible just like that new kind of tree.

You are going to judge those trees before you dwell in the orchard. The dead ones will be cut down and burned. Only the good ones will remain.


PSA version:

Same scenario. But to save the bad trees you consider the good tree to be the one bearing bad fruit. So you cut down the good tree to satisfy your requitement that only good trees remain when you move to the orchard.

Now you have all bad trees, but you look upon them as if they are good trees.

Some say you would then send another who could vaccinate the trees so that they would make good fruit by the time you move in.

Where does guilty man condemned to death by the Law of a Holy God find reconciliation in your parables?

The wrath of God on man for his sin must be carried out by God's Law. There is no way around it.

And who took the place of man?

 

[DaveXR650]

I disagree that if PSA is correct then limited atonement has to be correct.

Whether the atonement was for only the Elect or for the entirety of humanity the theme of PSA is the same.

Christ took the punishment of man including the wrath of God on man through The Man, Jesus Christ.

I agree with you on that. I was just saying that someone who hates PSA might for instance try to illustrate PSA as a scenario where our sins are atoned for by substitution and then we now possess a pardon that leaves us completely out of jeopardy no matter what we do. We who hold to PSA all disagree with that but our rebuttal will look different depending on how we view the other aspects of the atonement.

 

[JonC]

Maybe I misunderstood you but I thought that has been one of your go to responses. While I was typing this came up:

So please clarify. Are you or are you not saying that simple repentance on our part is all that is necessary for forgiveness of sins?

I am unfamiliar with the term "simple repentance", so I would have to read of that doctrine before affirming or rejecting.

If it means "a new heart", "dying to the desires of the flesh", "putting away the old self", "turning from wickedness and to God", "dying with Christ", "a new creation", "dying to sin", a "mind set on the Spirit" rather than a "mind set on the flesh", etc....then yes.

But I do not know why that would be labeled "simple", so probably "no".

 

[DaveXR650]

Believing the atonement was Christ submitting Himself to suffer under the bondage of sin and death by the power and authority of Satan, not instead of us but as a representation of the human race, and never under the punishment of God is PSA???

This isn't my definition. No. It is not PSA.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you. I couldn't recall their names.

FYI, Mike Ovey (1958-2017), who was Pincipal of Oak Hill Theological Seminary, was indeed an Anglican for most of his life, but at the time of his death, I understand thatt he was attending a Baptist church.

Mike Ovey

It’s five years ago since the shocking news that Mike Ovey had been taken from us suddenly. Although there has been the constant comfort that he is with the Lord which is a better thing, Mike…

faithroot.com

‘Just Mike’: A Tribute to Mike Ovey (1958–2017)

Editor’s Note: The Rev Dr Mike Ovey was principal of Oak Hill College in London and served as consulting editor of Themelios from 2012 until his sudden death 7 January, 2017 at the age of 58. Ovey trained for ministry at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, was ordained in the Church of England, and earned a...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Steve Jeffery is now pastor of All Saints Presbyterian Church, Fort Worth, Texas. Home -.
Andrew Sach is minister at Grace Church, Greenwich, London. Who we are – Grace Church Greenwich