THe Biblical Place for Penal Substitution

[JonC]

There is so much of that kind of teaching that is so anti Scripture, and not who God has revealed Himself to be.

There are very few of us biblicists today. I think many people see a need to belong to a camp and simply choose the one that best suits their understanding inundating themselves with writings and studies from their chosen sect. In the end they all discernment is lost, to include the fact they have exchanged "what is written" for what they believe the Bible teaches.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is no Calvinist worse than a bad Calvinist.

Maybe one that taught it for years and then decided it wasn't true after all?

 

[Ben1445]

Maybe one that taught it for years and then decided it wasn't true after all?

In my mind, there is no Calvinist but a hyper Calvinist. So to give that up is an improvement.
I know already I’m in trouble for saying that. I’ll take all the replies patiently.
But Calvinists don’t get to read the Bible and say “See? This is Calvinism.” They may say, “See? This is what God says.”
But to read the Bible and say it is Calvinism is to put the cart before the horse.
You may read Calvin and say it is Calvinism. But to take God’s Word and say that it is any one particular religion or theology system is wrong to do.
As much as I am sure that Baptist is the same thing as biblicist, I am not foolish enough to assert that anyone who is not Baptist does not believe the Bible.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I was not criticizing you for not using original sources. I was speaking to Dave about why it is important.

Look at the verses you provided in response to those requests.

Nome of the verses say or even address the questions you were supposedly addressing.

It is a short cut many take to quiet challenges. I am not going to address all of them, but none of them are remotely sufficient.


Lets look at one so you can see what I mean.


I ASKED - What passage states that God would be just to punish the just in order to clear the guilty?

YOU SAID - Isaiah 53:5-6 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

BUT - The passage you gave does not say that God would be just to punish the just, OR that God woukd be just to do so in order to clear the guilty.

The passage does not even say that the guilty are cleared (that would be an assumption, but what if the guilty were made in the image of Christ - actually righteous in the end?).

You may understand that to be what the verse teaches, but your understanding would not pass the test of Scripture.

That was my point. You are free to believe whatever you desire. But your belief cannot pass the test of Scripture.

You can test what you believe the Bibke teaches against what you think is taught by the Bible. But you cannot hold an objective faith (it is subjective) as it cannot pass the test if "what is written".

What do I mean by "wolves"?

I mean professing believers who tell others the biblical text means something other than is stated in God's Word (those who teach their understanding rather than the words that comes from God).

With all due respect Jon, this is beginning to sound like a Jehovah Witness asking me to provide one verse that proves the Trinity. Seriously, could you sufficiently answer such a question and if you could not, would you then concede that perhaps the trinity might not be biblical after all?

Isaiah 53:5 speaks of a suffering servant being "Wonded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities." It should be clear to any reader that someone is bearing the consequenses of another person's misdoings. There is clearly an exchange (imputation of guilt - imputation of righteousness) here just as there is in 2 Cor 5:21 and Rom 8:2-4. Being wounded and bruised sounds quite "punative" to me! Christ took on the form of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh - how exactly was sin condemned again?

I was reluctant to answer the questions because they were "loaded questions" that you had set up knowing that they could never be answered to your satisfaction. I have already conceded that perhaps I am not understanding PSA from the strict historic and Calvinistic standpoint that you are coming from. It is my understanding that PSA stands separately from Calvinism and a Limited Atonement and you say the two are inseparable. I still do not see it. With the way Dave described it, I am beginning to wonder whether I truly am a "Calvinist" after all! The best I can offer is to give a biblical explanation of what Christ accomplished with the atonement of which to me sounds a lot like PSA. Perhaps what I am describing is not PSA at all but if what I am describing is solidly rooted in scripture and you still do not agree, then there is a problem!

Just one more thing though... What was the deal with the cup that Jesus wanted to be passed from him in the garden of Gethsemane?

 

[Ascetic X]

Isaiah 53:5 speaks of a suffering servant being "Wonded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities." It should be clear to any reader that someone is bearing the consequenses of another person's misdoings. There is clearly an exchange (imputation of guilt - imputation of righteousness) here just as there is in 2 Cor 5:21 and Rom 8:2-4. Being wounded and bruised sounds quite "punative" to me! Christ took on the form of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh - how exactly was sin condemned again?

I was reluctant to answer the questions because they were "loaded questions" that you had set up knowing that they could never be answered to your satisfaction. I have already conceded that perhaps I am not understanding PSA from the strict historic and Calvinistic standpoint that you are coming from. It is my understanding that PSA stands separately from Calvinism and a Limited Atonement and you say the two are inseparable. I still do not see it. With the way Dave described it, I am beginning to wonder whether I truly am a "Calvinist" after all! The best I can offer is to give a biblical explanation of what Christ accomplished with the atonement of which to me sounds a lot like PSA. Perhaps what I am describing is not PSA at all but if what I am describing is solidly rooted in scripture and you still do not agree, then there is a problem!

Just one more thing though... What was the deal with the cup that Jesus wanted to be passed from him in the garden of Gethsemane?

I am strongly opposed to Calvinism, but Penal Substitutionary Atonement seems true, as I understand it. I see PSA as applicable to Unlimited Atonement.

Isaiah 53 speaks of Jesus being our substitute, as our sins were transferred to Him, so God crushed Him. He bore all our sins and sicknesses. By His stripes we are healed and by His blood our sins are atoned for, so we receive by grace His righteousness.

Mentioning the cup of God’s wrath against sin, which cup Jesus had to drink, underscores Jesus as substitute.

 

[Stopgap]

It’s the “God has sovereignly created some people with the intention of punishing them forever for something they could not help but do because they were born under sin and will reject a God that they never had an opportunity to receive and therefore have not actually rejected because you didn’t have the opportunity to reject you were just condemned already.

Hi, Ben.

While I do believe that God sovereignly elects certain individuals to salvation, what you have described is what I understand to be “double predestination,” and that is where I part ways with most Calvinists.

I can’t fathom the idea of a newborn dying in infancy and the only conscious experience they will ever have is suffering forever. Of course, the standard explanation given by Calvinists is that God is glorifying Himself by demonstrating His wrath and justice, but I find that line of thought to be untenable.

Back to the issue at hand, I do believe the atonement is only for those who are intended to be saved. My reasoning for that is simply this: as I read through the Gospels, and especially John, the Son declares that He must set the sinner free from the bondage of sin, making Him the first cause of salvation.

Some have said that a little bit of grace is provided to everyone to sort of help nudge them in the right direction, but I just don’t see that concept in Scripture.