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.

 

[DaveXR650]

In my mind, there is no Calvinist but a hyper Calvinist. So to give that up is an improvement.

Then I guess the book I have on Spurgeon's battles and debates with the hyper-Calvinists was a fake.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

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.

You do have common grace which is given to every man (Rom 1:20). Additionally, you cannot negect man's responsibility (Acts 17:30).

Arminians speak of "Prevenient Grace" and perhaps such exists but I would say that this is a part of common grace and not the same as efficacious (saving) grace.

Most Calvinists that I know of do not beleive that infants go to Hell. Those who hold to the seminal view may but most (including myself) hold to the federal view. As for me, those who cannot be held accountable for the "things that are clearly seen" for whatever reason (Rom 1:20) are excused.

But let's not hijack the thread and start arguing over Calvinism shall we?

 

[DaveXR650]

But let's not hijack the thread and start arguing over Calvinism shall we?

You're right. The question that PSA addresses is simply, did Christ's death do something that from God's side was directly essential to us in order that we may be saved. Christ was victorious over Satan and the powers of darkness. But in what way. There has to be a reason that this had to be done by Christ going to the cross. I believe that God could have simply defeated Satan in a direct way but something prevented that. I say that scripture is pretty clear that the goal since the Fall was that men be saved and not be part of the group aligned with Satan - and thus part of the group that will indeed be defeated in the end.

We do make assumptions, although no more than New Testament writers assumed, in that we link the OT sacrificial system to Christ's work.
We view the deliverance of Israel from Egypt as a physical foresight of our spiritual deliverance through salvation by Christ. Thus, John the Baptist saying "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world".
We do believe that what is called "propitiation" is somehow required in order that we be able to approach God. And we believe that the full meaning of this is more than just a removal or expiation of sin, although that is true too.
We believe that the need for propitiation is derived from God being God, in other words from his nature, not just because he has established by decree that propitiation be needed. In other words, we reject the idea that God can "simply forgive sin" without propitiation because that is not his nature to do so. (Rather than making God sound petty and unforgiving, we believe this not only indicates how much he loves and what Christ was willing to do - but we also realize that it proves that God must be true to his role as a just governor of everything and that we can thus depend upon him for justice as well as mercy, not only for our own sin, but for justice for evil done to us. Thus we can truly defer vengeance to God's hand, knowing full well it shall be done.

Thus while we believe that Christ as a suffering servant is indeed an example for those who wish to follow him, that cannot be the only reason Christ died. We believe that his death itself actually accomplished an actual atonement that the Godhead had planned from eternity past.
Because it was planned from eternity past those who view the Crucifixion of Christ as some kind of tragic mistake are wrong. It certainly is an indication of how low the human race has fallen, that we would do something like this, but it had a direct not just symbolic purpose in that it results in the forgiveness of sin for those who come to Christ by faith.

I don't think any of that requires a Calvinist perspective but it probably helps.

 

[Ben1445]

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.

I appreciate the response. But I am going to be very honest with you and I won’t beat around the bush.

There is no such thing as single predestination. If the only way for the atonement to apply to anyone is that it be exclusively intended for them, then anyone who God created to whom the atonement is not intended is by default, predestined to suffering with no hope of the Saviour. You can’t have only one predestination and the other side we just don’t think about.

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.

I don’t see why that little nudge is not visible to you in Scripture.

Jesus, God in the flesh came to reconcile all things to Himself and restore mankind to Himself. This is no little nudge. And if that were not enough, He commanded that we go tell every person. It’s called the great commission. If that isn’t a nudge in the right direction, I don’t know what you want to find.

You mean that the great commission is a neutral subject? God’s Word has not effect on some people? It returns void?

The answer to that of course is no. God’s Word will change everyone. Some people it will change and conform to the image of Christ. Others it will condemn because they refuse to accept it. But it is not useless or void. And the responsibility is not on a predetermined atonement. It is on the individual who rejects the Saviour in spite of His willingness to save them.

But to believe there is only predestination but no double predestination is like believing that there are not two sides to a coin.

It is like a door. If it is predetermined that only certain preselected people may enter, then the person responsible for preselecting has chosen who will be left out, especially since you are saying that the one who is choosing is the one who decides who may not come in, is the one who made the people on the outside. They would have to be created without purpose, haphazardly, and mindlessly.

And even then, it makes God to be a respecter of persons.

 

[Ben1445]

Then I guess the book I have on Spurgeon's battles and debates with the hyper-Calvinists was a fake.

Point taken.
But I still don’t agree with Spurgeon in several respects. I particularly disagree with him as he taught that we must continue to ask for salvation because we don’t know when God has determined that we may be saved. It makes God to cast off people who come to Him and are asking for forgiveness and salvation. Spurgeon is not infallible. He is just not as far off as most Calvinists.
In this I still see error in Calvinism.

It is like a race. The people who are disqualified are not chosen to be disqualified before the race. They are only disqualified because of their own actions. If salvation is within the rule book, and it is, then the only people who are disqualified from salvation are those who do not come by the way of Christ.

 

[Ben1445]

But let's not hijack the thread and start arguing over Calvinism shall we?

Whoops!!

 

[Ben1445]

We believe that his death itself actually accomplished an actual atonement that the Godhead had planned from eternity past.

But when the lord made the banquet and invited some to come who refused, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t really a banquet made for them.

I believe that when the banquet was made and some would not come, it didn’t change the extent of the preparation.

The atonement is accomplished. There is only one atonement and it made be applied wherever God wishes. There is no limit to the power of God.
Imputation is the key.

Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

 

[Van]

1 Jn 2:2 QED.

Now please explain to me what the word "Propitiation" (hilasmos) means.

Here is a typical defense of PSA! The question was: "was Christ the substitute for the sin of the world, all humanity, or just for the supposedly previously chosen elect.?"

Was the question answered? Nope.

Christ teaches our communications are to be plain, clear and bold. He certainly does NOT teach to answer a question with a diversionary question.

The NASB sometimes translates three Greek words as propitiation, G2433, G2434 and G2435. G24:34 is translated as propitiation in 1 John 2:2, and is footnoted as "means of reconciliation."

 

[Van]

I see only one person on this thread acting caustic and hurling insults. The rest of us are trying to have a productive conversation and I hope it continues.

LOL, my post was characterized as "outlandish" and my question evaded but not answered.

 

[Van]

@Van is right. But the argument is about limited atonement, with the presupposition that PSA is already true - and that it is defined as the actual atoning for the sins of the elect. The double payment of penalty argument is from John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". In all fairness though I should add that you have to understand Calvinism as a whole or reject it as a whole. The atoning for the sins of the elect cannot be isolated from the time when they will hear the call of God and come to Christ in faith and repentance. It's not fair to break it apart and then claim that a separate part doesn't make any sense. Therefore, if you cannot see how the atonement actually atoned for the sins it was meant to atone for - and yet the elect, who include all who want to come by their own choice - can infallibly do so and that therefore the gospel can be preached to every person, accompanied by a genuine invitation to all, and yet all those who freely come, come because they were chosen before the foundation of the world - then you don't and probably never will believe what is called Calvinism.

All I can say is if you don't like it, or can't get your head around it, don't become an enemy of it. There is no reason to do so in 2026. Instead, keep reading and studying scripture and the dual ideas of God's sovereignty and his honest desire that all be saved, working within the overall scope of his will being done - ends up making sense.

Thanks for standing up for the truth, at least our view of the truth on this topic!

 

[DaveXR650]

But when the lord made the banquet and invited some to come who refused, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t really a banquet made for them.

Right. Calvinism doesn't assert that. All it says is that from God's point of view, the people who Christ died for are the same people who don't refuse to come.
The proof of that is that these same people insist that the invitation to come is real and genuine to all who hear the gospel message. And that every person who does come to Christ will be received. That is enough for me. I have bothered to study Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ", where, in the preface to in, in the book I have, some of the responses to it are published, and I am satisfied that the only thing Owen was trying to do was greatly honor the suffering of Christ by saying that the Father would not have placed any more on Christ than was necessary to achieve the redemption of those who would be saved. And, being God, he could do this in this manner.

To me, it is most natural and the simplest to just say that the atoning work of Christ is available to all and let it go at that. That's what the general Baptists, Anglicans like J.C. Ryle, and the Lutherans did, among many others. J.C. Ryle would say to people that "Jesus died for your sins" and he would say that in general to everyone who would listen. Stricter Calvinists would say "Christ has died" and if you come to Christ he will save you. The difference is subtle, and I lean all the way to Ryle, personally. But as long as the invitation to come is true and genuine I see no real difference from our point of view as sinners.

 

[JonC]

With all due respect Jon...

Sorry it took a bit to respond. Very busy morning. I do want to go through your post thoroughly. I believe that taking our time to address each point is important, and it is respectful.

I am going to break this down into a few posts. I do not want to do you the disrespect of shorter replies than are necessary. I can be lazy...but not that lazy.

First, I do not know why you believe requiring foundational doctrine to be “what is written” sounds like Jehovah Witnesses, but I would caution you that comparing a traditional and orthodox Christian view to that of a cult simply because it is a view you disagree with is not good form.

For example, I could say that your statements sound exactly like Mormonism. In fact, I think you would probably agree with the central theme of the Atonement that Mormon’s hold (“mercy cannot rob justice”). But I would not make that connection just as you should not have done so.

A Concern I have is in the way you have presented your post. You sound like a “cut and paste” indoctrinated member of some sect. When we have discussed the Atonement those who argue PSA seem to have been indoctrinated by the same group of men. Very quickly the response is to link biblicists to the Jehovah Witnesses, the doctrine of the Trinity is brought up as somehow not in the biblical text. You have followed that script. The next step (if you are a member of this type of thing) would be to call my position incoherent, new, or a view unique to me. Then follow that with a barrage of challenges, ignoring responses. This normally ends with ad hominem and attacks.

I sincerely hope you are posting honestly because I have enjoyed our conversation. I believe you are, just perhaps you have gotten ahold of some popular but flawed PSA apologetics online.

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist - continued.

“What is Written” – We are commanded to test doctrine against the faith once delivered, against the words that have come from God. We are commanded to lean not on our own understanding but on the words of God. This is why I am adamant that any foundational doctrine, as are doctrines of the Atonement, actually be present in the text of Scripture rather than what a sect believes to be taught by the Bible.

You bring up the doctrine of the Trinity. Can I provide verses that state the foundational doctrine of the trinity? Remember – I NEVER asked you to provide one verse that states PSA doctrine. I asked for a verse that states each element (each question was intentionally individual).

Can I provide a verse that states God is One? Yes
Can I provide a verse that states Jesus and the Father are One? Yes
Can I provide a verse that states the Spirit is the Spirit of God? Yes



Now - just to continue in showing what I am looking for – Can I provide verses that state my belief? Yes. I will provide a few for illustration.

Can I provide a verse that states Christ defeated Satan? Yes
Can I provide a verse that states the power of death is the power of Satan? Yes
Can I provide a verse that states it is evil to punish the just? Yes
Can I provide a verse that states it is an abomination to convict the righteous? Yes
Can I provide a verse that states it is an abomination to clear the guilty? Yes
Can I provide a verse that states we will be made into the image of Christ? Yes
Can I provide a verse that states God can forgive sins themselves? Yes

I asked very simple questions that, IF PSA is in “what is written”, should have been easily answered.

Could you provide a passage stating Jesus experienced God’s wrath? No
Could you provide a passage stating that God would be just to punish the righteous in order to clear the guilty? No
Could you provide a passage stating that Jesus suffered divine punishment so we wouldn’t? No

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist -

So how does PSA look if you remove from the theory what is not in the Bible? Remove the idea that Jesus experienced God’s wrath, that Jesus suffered instead of us, that Jesus died instead of us, that God must punish sins. If you do that, is it still PSA? No.

Isaiah 53 – Yes, Isaiah 53 foreshadows what would occur on the Cross. Jesus was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. Yes, Jesus suffered the consequences of our sin.

Where you go wrong is in assuming that Jesus bearing our sins, God laying our sins on Him, is the same as God transferring our sins from us.

Apply this method to the other side of the exchange. We now bear Christ’s righteousness and will after this life in a more substantial way. Does this mean God has removed Christ’s righteousness from Him? No, of course not. God clothes us, now, in Christ’s righteousness. Does this mean that God has removed Jesus’ righteousness – that He is now at the right hand of the Father as an unrighteous Son?? No.

You are reading your philosophy into select passages and applying those ideas inconsistently to arrive at a desired outcome. That is called eisegesis.

The Cup - The “cup” is a symbol Scripture uses quite often. Sometimes this is a cup of blessing, sometimes a curse, sometimes hardship, sometimes joy.

In the Bible (and in the Hebrew language) one’s “cup” is a metaphor which symbolizes a person’s portion in life (that person’s destiny, what has been set aside for them to do). In Psalm 23 it is a cup of blessing. In Psalm 116 it is a cup of salvation. Jesus mentioned a couple of times this cup that He must drink. He told James and John that they would share this cup. And His words indicated that this cup would not be pleasant but would be suffering.

In each case the “cup” means what God has set aside for a person, something in the future that is to take place.