Penal Substitution Atonement (explain and discuss)

[DaveXR650]

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".

By simple I mean without the concept that an atonement of some kind was necessary. It is an argument that simply repenting of your wrongdoing is sufficient to cause God to forgive you.

 

[JonC]

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?

The guilty man dies and is "made a new creation in Christ". He is "raised Incorruptible", in "the image of Christ".

When God judges the world all of the wicked men will be condemned.


?? Who took the place of man?

Nobody takes our place. What passage are you thinking about (maybe I am misreading your question).

Christ is the Second Adam. The First Adam was a representative of the entire human race. But he did not take our place in Eden.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If I misunderstood then my apologies.

Accepted.

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?

Is this John Owen's definition or yours? If Owen's, can you point me to it, please? I find it strange that Owen would use the word 'humanity.'

 

[JonC]

By simple I mean without the concept that an atonement of some kind was necessary. It is an argument that simply repenting of your wrongdoing is sufficient to cause God to forgive you.

I believe Christ Himself is sufficient for our forgiveness.

But I also believe our sin against God is beyond payment. Even when God destroys the wicked their sins are not erased.

Sin is more damning than you are allowing. The sinner must die. God will punish the wicked.


If you mean appeasement like the pagans trying to appease their gods, then it does not happen. The Atonement changes man, not God.

 

[DaveXR650]

Is this John Owen's definition or yours? If Owen's, can you point me to it, please? I find it strange that Owen would use the word 'humanity.'

I'd like to see that too. I've never seen a one sentence definition of anything by Owen!

 

[JonC]

Accepted.

Is this John Owen's definition or yours? If Owen's, can you point me to it, please? I find it strange that Owen would use the word 'humanity.'

It is RC Sproul (and JI Packer) that used "humanity". But you said you agreed with thise definitions.

I added John Owen because I thought he was more clear on couple of points.

You only objected when Owen's words were included.

 

[JonC]

I'd like to see that too. I've never seen a one sentence definition of anything by Owen!

Like I said, that was Sproul and Packer. @Martin Marprelate agreed with those definitions and only objected when I introduced John Owen.

I would leave it out as well because PSA is Calvinistic. But we cannot change it to "elect" because then it excludes non-Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists from holding PSA.

Also, PSA existed before the scope of the Atonement became a topic.

 

[Ben1445]

@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.

I would say that the God who made the trees is able to make them again.
The difference in your example is that we’re not able to change the trees, but God is and must buy his own word.

 

[DaveXR650]

But I also believe our sin against God is beyond payment. Even when God destroys the wicked their sins are not erased.

Yes. That is the whole reasoning behind the necessity of Jesus being our substitute.

Sin is more damning than you are allowing. The sinner must die. God will punish the wicked.

No. It's more damning than you allow. God will punish those who have sinned, even if they decide they will stop sinning from now on. You are sunk without Christ's atonement, period.

If you mean appeasement like the pagans trying to appease their gods, then it does not happen. The Atonement changes man, not God.

No I don't and that has been explained numerous times that this is completely different than pagan rites. You are doing what I thought, going back to rebutting PSA on a thread where you said not to do this.

 

[Charlie24]

The guilty man dies and is "made a new creation in Christ". He is "raised Incorruptible", in "the image of Christ".

When God judges the world all of the wicked men will be condemned.


?? Who took the place of man?

Nobody takes our place. What passage are you thinking about (maybe I am misreading your question).

Christ is the Second Adam. The First Adam was a representative of the entire human race. But he did not take our place in Eden.

Ok, Brother, I understand your position and I have no problem with it. I would have a problem if this was deemed mandatory knowledge with God.

Let me explain, if I can, why I'm PSA.

The wrath of God on man for His sin is death, that is exactly what Christ took for us in our place.

That sentence of death is both physical death and spiritual death, the Second death, eternal separation from God.

We have sinned and that wrath is due us, but Christ never sinned and the Law of Sin and Death has no hold on Him.

The only way man can die the Second Death is to reject God's way out of that wrath, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who took that wrath for us.

 

[JonC]

I would say that the God who made the trees is able to make them again.
The difference in your example is that we’re not able to change the trees, but God is and must buy his own word.

God is able to make the trees again (we agree here). The trees cannot change themselves. That good tree changes them.

 

[DaveXR650]

I would leave it out as well because PSA is Calvinistic. But we cannot change it to "elect" because then it excludes non-Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists from holding PSA.

I say again, some Calvinists do or did teach that without limited atonement you don't have PSA. James White would be a modern guy saying that. I do not agree with him on that. Owen's work on the atonement, especially "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" has in mind arguing with "universalists" as he called them, who by that mean those who hold to an unlimited atonement. The work is excellent but would be off putting to one who does not believe in a limited atonement.

I personally do not believe in a limited atonement but have no problem with Owen or most other Calvinists who teach that a real and true invitation is given to anyone who hears the gospel. But your view on the scope of the atonement will color your arguments for PSA. Owen for instance, spends a lot of time explaining how Jesus acts as our real time advocate by bringing his blood and presenting it as it were, to God as an intercession for our sins. He claims that this is impossible in a general sense that Jesus would present his blood in advocacy to anyone who is not elect or who may later fall away because if Jesus advocates for you you will be saved.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650

For arguments sake I will grant you are right that Paul Enns, R.C. Sproul, J. I. Packers and the writers of Pierced by our transgressions were wrong in including humanity.

Here is a modified version:

Jesus taking the penalty for 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.

How is that not PSA?

 

[JonC]

The wrath of God on man for His sin is death...that sentence of death is both physical death and spiritual death, the Second death, eternal separation from God.

I think we both agree Jesus did not die physically so that we would not physically die.

It is appointed man once to due and rhen the Judgment.

When is this judgment?

 

[DaveXR650]

. Owen for instance, spends a lot of time explaining how Jesus acts as our real time advocate by bringing his blood and presenting it as it were, to God as an intercession for our sins. He claims that this is impossible in a general sense that Jesus would present his blood in advocacy to anyone who is not elect or who may later fall away because if Jesus advocates for you you will be saved.

To clarify. Owen ties that priestly work of Christ in with the atonement and does not allow this to be separated into separate or "potential" benefits. A non Calvinist who believes in PSA will simply say that Christ's priestly work on our behalf is for those who believe, according to whatever level of free will one believes they have. The difference here for PSA is that Owen is very careful to explain that all this is part and parcel of the atonement as accomplished by Christ before we decide to believe of make any move toward God.

Honestly, if you really look at "The Death of Death" and take the time to try to get through it, chances are you will come out a Calvinist. That's just a warning.

 

[Charlie24]

I think we both agree Jesus did not die physically so that we would not physically die.

It is appointed man once to due and rhen the Judgment.

When is this judgment?

Yes, the death of man was inevitable through the fact of sin.

But we were condemned to a much worse fate than that.

The One who never sinned and God's Law could not take hold of, volunteered to suffer that wrath on our part.

 

[JonC]

Honestly, if you really look at "The Death of Death" and take the time to try to get through it, chances are you will come out a Calvinist. That's just a warning.

Very good warning. We need to be careful about the things we allow into our minds. It is easy to be drawn away by philosophy.

But Owen is not that bad. I still read him even though he fails at times.

 

[DaveXR650]

For arguments sake I will grant you are right that Paul Enns, R.C. Sproul, J. I. Packers and the writers of Pierced by our transgressions were wrong in including humanity.

I don't think they were wrong whether you grant it or not.

Jesus taking the penalty for 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.

I'm OK with that as long as you grant that more can be said in explanation. For instance, rather than "enabling God reconcile us to Himself" I would say it was part of God's redemptive work to reconcile us to himself. God isn't really "enabled" by anything but just as part of an honest statement I wouldn't quibble with that.

 

[JonC]

Yes, the death of man was inevitable through the fact of sin.

But we were condemned to a much worse fate than that.

The One who never sinned and God's Law could not take hold of, volunteered to suffer that wrath on our part.

Yes, sin itself produces death as a wage, and its author is the devil. This is physical death.

I was talking about God's judgment, which comes in the future. He will condemn the wicked and justify the righteous.

God considering our "debt" as paid would not change this.

 

[DaveXR650]

Very good warning. We need to be careful about the things we allow into our minds. It is easy to be drawn away by philosophy.

But Owen is not that bad. I still read him even though he fails at times.

I was just joking. I love him and consider his books as some of my most treasured possessions.