Penal Substitution Atonement (explain and discuss)

[DaveXR650]

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.

I never know where you are going with this but since this is on PSA I can tell you that PSA has the wages of sin and the death discussed being more than temporal or physical death and it is also punitive and pronounced by God. Not to say that Satan does not kill whenever he can, but I would say whenever Satan kills he is illegally murdering just as a human murderer and not by some divine right that God owes him.

 

[JonC]

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

I know. But I wasn't.

My favorite is The Mortification of the Flesh...probably because it was the first writing of his I read. But I have read all of his works at least once.

The danger is approaching Owen (or any writer) to decide what to believe rather than to understand what he believed.

 

[JonC]

whenever Satan kills he is illegally murdering

I disagree. Satan has a legal right over those he owns. Men dying as a wage of sin, under that death produced by sin and rhe law of sin and death, under death as the power of the devil, Satan as the author of sin....this is not unjust. It is the wage men rightfully earn.

However, the punishment of Christ was unjust. He submitted to death, which we earned as a wage (not Him). It was for our sins He died.

 

[DaveXR650]

I know. But I wasn't.

I didn't think so.

My favorite is The Mortification of the Flesh...probably because it was the first writing of his I read. But I have read all of his works at least once.

Yes, "On the Mortification of Sin" I think it was. I read the cliff notes version as Jerry Bridges "Pursuit of Holiness" first and later the real deal. It was the seriousness with which they dealt with sin that attracted me to Calvinism more so than the deterministic philosophical aspects, which I wasn't and am still not that interested in.

 

[JonC]

I didn't think so.

Yes, "On the Mortification of Sin" I think it was. I read the cliff notes version as Jerry Bridges "Pursuit of Holiness" first and later the real deal. It was the seriousness with which they dealt with sin that attracted me to Calvinism more so than the deterministic philosophical aspects, which I wasn't and am still not that interested in.

Mine was both (the seriousness of living a holy life and Calvinism...I was a Calvinist back then). But Puritan theology is not without its issues (all have issues of their own, I suppose).

It was Calvinism's lack of seriousness towards sin when dealing with the cross that helped me move from it (initially it was trying to hold a biblicist position and PSA, which is impossible).

 

[JesusFan]

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.

The Psa has more scripturally support, as well as more support from solid scholarship and authors

 

[DaveXR650]

It was Calvinism's lack of seriousness towards sin when dealing with the cross that helped me move from it (initially it was trying to hold a biblicist position and PSA, which is impossible).

That the idea that my own personal sin would be the direct cause of what Jesus went through on the cross could possibly be interpreted as a lack of seriousness towards sin is beyond comment.

 

[JonC]

That the idea that my own personal sin would be the direct cause of what Jesus went through on the cross could possibly be interpreted as a lack of seriousness towards sin is beyond comment.

No, it is not beyond comment. It is actually the point.

We all believe our sins were the cause of the cross.

You believe your personal sins could be resolved by Christ taking that punishment in your place.

I am saying that if you were the only man and Christ was punished in your place a million times over this would not even be a start to reconcile you to God. The seriousness of your sin against God is eternally greater than you are allowing. Punishment would not even scratch the surface.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am saying that if you were the only man and Christ was punished in your place a million times over this would not even be a start to reconcile you to God. The seriousness of your sin against God is eternally greater than you are allowing. Punishment would not even scratch the surface.

I'm not "allowing" anything. Jesus bore our sins on the cross and made satisfaction to God by doing so. I would not dare come up with such a scenario in a million years. But it appears that that was what God wanted and planned. I don't know how you get off declaring that that is not good enough but I would reconsider.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

Come on, Jon! You really don't have to misunderstand everything I say! I don't have any objection to the word "humanity." It's in the Pierced for our Transgressions definition for Pete's sake! All I said was that I didn't think Owen would use it because it's a modern word. Owen would have said "mankind."

 

[JonC]

I'm not "allowing" anything. Jesus bore our sins on the cross and made satisfaction to God by doing so. I would not dare come up with such a scenario in a million years. But it appears that that was what God wanted and planned. I don't know how you get off declaring that that is not good enough but I would reconsider.

That is my point. You are not allowing sin to be the serious affront to justice that Scripture demands.

Your view does not take sin seriously enough.

 

[JonC]

Come on, Jon! You really don't have to misunderstand everything I say! I don't have any objection to the word "humanity." It's in the Pierced for our Transgressions definition for Pete's sake! All I said was that I didn't think Owen would use it because it's a modern word. Owen would have said "mankind."

I can't recall Owen using it. That is why I did not use Owen to say "humanity" (that was Sproul).

But that was the only part of the definition you objected to.

We are five pages in. It should not be pulling teeth to get a simole answer for a simple question.

Here it is again (I put "humanity" back in as now you are fine with it):

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 that not PSA?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, it is not beyond comment. It is actually the point.

We all believe our sins were the cause of the cross.

You believe your personal sins could be resolved by Christ taking that punishment in your place.

I am saying that if you were the only man and Christ was punished in your place a million times over this would not even be a start to reconcile you to God. The seriousness of your sin against God is eternally greater than you are allowing. Punishment would not even scratch the surface.

Your problem, @JonC, is that this is what the Bible actually teaches. 'We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, into his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' That is what God has done to reconcile us to HImself. If you think He should have done it a different way, you will have to wait until you meet Him and tell Him where He got it wrong. Good luck with that!

 

[DaveXR650]

"That wherein the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ whilst he was on the earth doth consist, cannot be rejected or denied without damnable error; but the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ whilst he was upon the earth consisted in this, to bear the punishment due to our sins, to make atonement with God, by undergoing his wrath, and reconciling him to sinners upon the satisfaction made to his justice: therefore cannot these things be denied without damnable error". John Owen from The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
That's about as concise as Owen will get. He also would have been kicked off this board a long time ago for saying that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I can't recall Owen using it. That is why I did not use Owen to say "humanity" (that was Sproul).

But that was the only part of the definition you objected to.

We are five pages in. It should not be pulling teeth to get a simole answer for a simple question.

Here it is again (I put "humanity" back in as now you are fine with it):

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 that not PSA?

Sorry! I don't believe that's Owen - it's you - and unless you give me chapter and verse to prove it's Owen, I'm not commenting on it.
And for the record, I did NOT object to the use of the word "humanity." I object to discussing YOUR definition of PSA when there are plenty of others to discuss.
Also, I don't have any objection to discussing my post #29 if you want.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"That wherein the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ whilst he was on the earth doth consist, cannot be rejected or denied without damnable error; but the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ whilst he was upon the earth consisted in this, to bear the punishment due to our sins, to make atonement with God, by undergoing his wrath, and reconciling him to sinners upon the satisfaction made to his justice: therefore cannot these things be denied without damnable error". John Owen from The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
That's about as concise as Owen will get. He also would have been kicked off this board a long time ago for saying that.

Thanks, Dave!

 

[JonC]

Your problem, @JonC, is that this is what the Bible actually teaches. 'We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, into his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' That is what God has done to reconcile us to HImself. If you think He should have done it a different way, you will have to wait until you meet Him and tell Him where He got it wrong. Good luck with that!

That is not my problem. I absolutely agree with that verse.

But I do not believe God laying our sins on Jesus is reconciliation itself. I believe Christ bore our sins but also died for our sins.

Without the cross there is no reconciliation.

 

[JonC]

Sorry! I don't believe that's Owen - it's you - and unless you give me chapter and verse to prove it's Owen, I'm not commenting on it.
And for the record, I did NOT object to the use of the word "humanity." I object to discussing YOUR definition of PSA when there are plenty of others to discuss.
Also, I don't have any objection to discussing my post #29 if you want.

Sure. Chapter 3 in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Owen presents what Jesus experienced as God's wrath.

 

[DaveXR650]

Another explanation, because there is always somebody who doesn't get the word here is Owen a couple of pages later:
"God spared not his only Son, but gave him up to death for us all; that he made him to be sin for us; that he put all the sins of all the elect into that cup which he was to drink of; that the wrath and flood which they feared did fall upon Jesus Christ (though now as the ark, he be above it, so that if they could get into him they should be safe). The storm hath been his and the safety shall be theirs. As all the waters which would have fallen upon them that were in the ark fell upon the ark, they being dry and safe, so all the wrath that should have fallen upon them fell on Christ; which alone causeth their souls to dwell in safety."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is not my problem. I absolutely agree with that verse.

But I do not believe God laying our sins on Jesus is reconciliation itself. I believe Christ bore our sins but also died for our sins.

Without the cross there is no reconciliation.

Oh please! Do I have to write out the whole of Isaiah 53 every time I post? Of course without the cross there is no reconciliation. That's why Paul wrote, 'For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.'