The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution, part 2

[JonC]

I'll throw this out in case someone other than you might indeed be interested. 1 Peter 2:24 states substitution. It doesn't completely explain penal substitution. But you also have the facts of what is being discussed in the passage. If you are willing to agree that "on the tree" is referring to the crucifixion on the cross, and you think about what that entailed, you start getting an understanding of the penal part.

That makes it penal. Penal substitution.
I don't know what else to say. The only rebuttal worse than yours is the one in "Catholic Answers". They are slightly more obnoxious, and less subtle.

Yes. There are penal aspects. But that does not make it Christ experiencing God's punishment (you assume that is in the text).

You are forgetting that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness because it is necessary BUT in the Bible the actual atonement was made by the priest applying the blood.

I know you find my rebuttal ("but what does Scripture say, what is written") obnoxious.

But that is because you find Scripture itself (the actual words of God, the biblical text) obnoxious absent what those leaders in your sect who tickle your ears tell you is really taught.

There is a reason you turn from "what is written" to an "easy believism" theory. It is normal for natural man to seek out what is pleasing to the flesh. It is natural to seek out a fairly benign and shallow theory than accept God's words which call foe legitimate change and the abandonment of ourselves.

I do not fault you for that because I did it for decades. But that does not mean I will stop pointing to God and "what is written" because you find it obnoxious.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is a reason you turn from "what is written" to an "easy believism" theory. It is normal for natural man to seek out what is pleasing to the flesh. It is natural to seek out a fairly benign and shallow theory than accept God's words which call foe legitimate change and the abandonment of ourselves.

I do not fault you for that because I did it for decades. But that does not mean I will stop pointing to God and "what is written" because you find it obnoxious.

Stop the self-righteous drivel long enough to realize that whether it be Richard Baxter, or John Owen or John MacArthur, what I am talking about is no "easy believism". Easy believism is a modern way of describing antinomianism, which has been dealt with at length. Since you deliberately tried to avoid any identifiable affiliation you can throw such accusations around without having to defend your own beliefs. In reality, and if you want to put up more examples we could look at, but whenever you do put up the ones attacking penal substitution, all you have to do is look at the other work they do and you will find what really happens with those who claim legitimate change and the abandonment of ourselves instead of atonement. In reality, there is far less actual abandonment and true holy living than those who view Christ as their only true righteousness. Owen had this argument with the Catholics back in his day.

I would appreciate it too if you would stop raising new points until you have addressed mine. Like in post #10, also.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The atonement was not the shedding of blood.

Hebrews 9:22.

 

[percho]

I do not think so.

I do believe it is more correct than Penal Substitution (minus the focus on honor).

But we have to keep in mind that PSA today is a bit different from PSA centuries ago.

Until fairly recently (relatively speaking) PSA held that Jesus experiemced the punishment we would have if we were not saved. Christ descended into Hell and was tormented as we would have been eternally.

The punishment was our punishment.

This neo-PSA that exists today altered the theory. Instead of Christ suffering our punishment He is viewed to have suffered a punishment God accepted as satisfaction.

Today's PSA is closer to Luther's theory in that it is a mixture of Aquinas' theory and Calvin's theory.

It should be called satisfactory penal substitution theory.

It is not as old as Calvin's theory (which is the newest of the formal theories of atonement). Calvin despised Aquinas' view here.

I am not sure, however, that PSA is held today. Most have blended it with satisfaction theory as debates have continued.

The only contemporary figure I have seen advocating PSA as it was centuries ago is Joyce Myers. Most today seem to view atonement as being accomplished on the cross.

I should have asked you directly for that was my intent but elected not to do so. Thoughts and questions.

Matt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken [ other translations, abandoned ] me? [ ἐγκατέλιπες G1459 ] [From ἐν (G1722) and καταλείπω (G2641) ]
Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

How much time passed between the two statements? I would think very little. Maybe less than two minutes. In, the death, was the Son feeling forsaken, abandoned of the Father, his God? Is that in of itself a form of torment? To be forsaken, abandoned of your Father?

Acts 2:31 NKJV because of the word Hades
“he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. l g2641 left, NIV, NSV, CSB, NASB, AMP,NET, RSV abandoned into Hades

BTW before I ask I do not believe paradise has ever been a chamber of Hades/sheol. I can not find that stated in the Word of God>

Through the Father laying the sins of us all upon the Son resulting in the shed blood, death of the Son; Was the Son, after three days, not abandoned, forsaken, left into Hades because of the resurrection?

Did the Son experience the wrath of God, his Father?

 

[JonC]

Stop the self-righteous drivel long enough to realize that whether it be Richard Baxter, or John Owen or John MacArthur, what I am talking about is no "easy believism". Easy believism is a modern way of describing antinomianism, which has been dealt with at length. Since you deliberately tried to avoid any identifiable affiliation you can throw such accusations around without having to defend your own beliefs. In reality, and if you want to put up more examples we could look at, but whenever you do put up the ones attacking penal substitution, all you have to do is look at the other work they do and you will find what really happens with those who claim legitimate change and the abandonment of ourselves instead of atonement. In reality, there is far less actual abandonment and true holy living than those who view Christ as their only true righteousness. Owen had this argument with the Catholics back in his day.

I would appreciate it too if you would stop raising new points until you have addressed mine. Like in post #10, also.

You are talking "easy believism".

Do you remember our past conversations? You'd ask me question after question, never addressing my answers.

I am not doing that. I do not care about your understanding of what you think the Bible teaches. I care about the words that actually come firth from God.

So my point here is to constantly point to God and His words....not John Owen. Not Kenneth Copeland. Not John Wesley. Not Joseph Smith.


But yes, you have sought out and found what is perhaps the single greatest example of "easy believism" known within the "Christian" faith.

 

[JonC]

I should have asked you directly for that was my intent but elected not to do so. Thoughts and questions.

Matt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken [ other translations, abandoned ] me? [ ἐγκατέλιπες G1459 ] [From ἐν (G1722) and καταλείπω (G2641) ]
Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

How much time passed between the two statements? I would think very little. Maybe less than two minutes. In, the death, was the Son feeling forsaken, abandoned of the Father, his God? Is that in of itself a form of torment? To be forsaken, abandoned of your Father?

Acts 2:31 NKJV because of the word Hades
“he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. l g2641 left, NIV, NSV, CSB, NASB, AMP,NET, RSV abandoned into Hades

BTW before I ask I do not believe paradise has ever been a chamber of Hades/sheol. I can not find that stated in the Word of God>

Through the Father laying the sins of us all upon the Son resulting in the shed blood, death of the Son; Was the Son, after three days, not abandoned, forsaken, left into Hades because of the resurrection?

Did the Son experience the wrath of God, his Father?

No, according to Scripture it is impossible that Christ experienced God's wrath.

Psalm 22 foreshadows the Cross. This psalm starts with the Servant crying out "My God, why have you forsaken me". But what directly follows is a percise faith that God will not abandon His righteous although they be forsaken to suffer, even die, at the hands of the enemy.

The Servant even appeals to God's righteousness exhibited to His forefathers. God will deliver Him as God delivered them. God will not punish them but remain faithful to His words. God will not clear the wicked but instead will exercise judgment to His enemies.


"Hades" is the Greek for "sheol". It means the grave. We have to remember that Hell in the sence of the Lake of Fire does not exist at this moment.

Hades is not speaking of a part of Paradise. Paradise was where the saints would go when they went to Hades (Sheol).

 

[DaveXR650]

So my point here is to constantly point to God and His words....not John Owen. Not Kenneth Copeland. Not John Wesley. Not Joseph Smith.

This is your typical method. Raise some examples, with ridiculousness thrown in, claim that you and you alone use scripture. And this right after refusing once again to address the clear scripture in post 10.

Do you remember our past conversations? You'd ask me question after question, never addressing my answers.

Your answers are never forthcoming. Since you don't believe in "easy believism" do you believe that your repentance and resolve to live a new life are what saves you? This should be easy. And if it instead, hinges on the work of Christ, yet repentance, faith, good works and so on are completely necessary then say so and there may be common ground.

Remember, there are legitimate differences in what is going on in our minds and souls as we come to Christ, with good men looking at it differently. That is another subject. The only thing important here is that whether you are talking about a strict Calvinist who believes that a changed and regenerated person comes after being granted faith and repentance, or whether a high Calvinist who believes that inherent in true saving faith is repentance and an intention to follow Christ, or a neonomian like Baxter, who believed that God set up a lesser law for those saved - the fact is, all believed in penal substitution and all believed in the necessity of a holy life, without it no salvation.

And, most good gospel preachers openly say that sure, it looks easy, Christ died to make it easy. And any true gospel preacher should occasionally be accused of antinomianism or else they are preaching a works based salvation like you apparently believe, and which, like I said, has questionable results.

 

[JesusFan]

Those who say it is impossible for God to forgive sins — they have a lot of trouble with Psalm 103.

1 Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name.

2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:

3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;

4 Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;

5 Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's.

6 The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.

7 He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.

8 The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

9 He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.

10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.

12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lordpitieth them that fear him.

14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.

16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.

17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.

Without the shedding of the blood of Jesus, and Him enduring the wrath and condemnation due unto us as law breakers, not even God can forgive lost sinners and remain True to His holiness and attritrutes and nature apart from the basis of Jesus receiving upon Himself that which is due to all of us PSA 101

 

[JesusFan]

No, according to Scripture it is impossible that Christ experienced God's wrath.

Psalm 22 foreshadows the Cross. This psalm starts with the Servant crying out "My God, why have you forsaken me". But what directly follows is a percise faith that God will not abandon His righteous although they be forsaken to suffer, even die, at the hands of the enemy.

The Servant even appeals to God's righteousness exhibited to His forefathers. God will deliver Him as God delivered them. God will not punish them but remain faithful to His words. God will not clear the wicked but instead will exercise judgment to His enemies.


"Hades" is the Greek for "sheol". It means the grave. We have to remember that Hell in the sence of the Lake of Fire does not exist at this moment.

Hades is not speaking of a part of Paradise. Paradise was where the saints would go when they went to Hades (Sheol).

IF Jesus never took that divine wrath due to us as being lost sinners, God the father has NO basis to declare us justified

 

[JesusFan]

I do not think so.

I do believe it is more correct than Penal Substitution (minus the focus on honor).

But we have to keep in mind that PSA today is a bit different from PSA centuries ago.

Until fairly recently (relatively speaking) PSA held that Jesus experiemced the punishment we would have if we were not saved. Christ descended into Hell and was tormented as we would have been eternally.

The punishment was our punishment.

This neo-PSA that exists today altered the theory. Instead of Christ suffering our punishment He is viewed to have suffered a punishment God accepted as satisfaction.

Today's PSA is closer to Luther's theory in that it is a mixture of Aquinas' theory and Calvin's theory.

It should be called satisfactory penal substitution theory.

It is not as old as Calvin's theory (which is the newest of the formal theories of atonement). Calvin despised Aquinas' view here.

I am not sure, however, that PSA is held today. Most have blended it with satisfaction theory as debates have continued.

The only contemporary figure I have seen advocating PSA as it was centuries ago is Joyce Myers. Most today seem to view atonement as being accomplished on the cross.

NO Psa holder stated that Jesus had to get born again spiritually, nor that somehow had to go to hell to complete salvation, that ids demonic theology of word of faith, not what any legit Calvinist nor Reformed hold to regarding psa atonement

 

[JonC]

This is your typical method. Raise some examples, with ridiculousness thrown in, claim that you and you alone use scripture. And this right after refusing once again to address the clear scripture in post 10.

Your answers are never forthcoming. Since you don't believe in "easy believism" do you believe that your repentance and resolve to live a new life are what saves you? This should be easy. And if it instead, hinges on the work of Christ, yet repentance, faith, good works and so on are completely necessary then say so and there may be common ground.

Remember, there are legitimate differences in what is going on in our minds and souls as we come to Christ, with good men looking at it differently. That is another subject. The only thing important here is that whether you are talking about a strict Calvinist who believes that a changed and regenerated person comes after being granted faith and repentance, or whether a high Calvinist who believes that inherent in true saving faith is repentance and an intention to follow Christ, or a neonomian like Baxter, who believed that God set up a lesser law for those saved - the fact is, all believed in penal substitution and all believed in the necessity of a holy life, without it no salvation.

And, most good gospel preachers openly say that sure, it looks easy, Christ died to make it easy. And any true gospel preacher should occasionally be accused of antinomianism or else they are preaching a works based salvation like you apparently believe, and which, like I said, has questionable results.

No. I did not throw in ridiculous examples.

Those who follow Kenneth Copeland believe that he is a God-given teacher and that what he teaches is the Word of God properly understood.

Same with all of the rest. There is absolutely no difference. You believe what men you think to be God-given teachers have told you the Bible really teaches when properly understood.

Just like disciples if those I listed, your faith does not pass the test of Scripture. Instead you test your understanding of what the Bible teaches against what you believe is taught by the Bible. You have chosen to lean on your own understsnd rather than the words that come forth from God.

You take that as obnoxious and insulting, but it is not. It is a statement of fact.

The ONLY difference between you and any of those sects is the men you choose to follow are different.


No. I do not believe that our repentance saves us. I believe that God saves us znd thst we are cleansed by the blood of Christ.

The OT atonement foreshadows the New. The shedding of blood in the OT was necessary BUT it was the priest (not the ones who killed the animals) who applied the blood that made atonement. That is why in the OT it states the priest made atonement for the people, applying blood to the altar.

We are saved through the act of Christ. But it is not the easy-believism of PSA. It actually makes demands of us. God will not, not ever, clear the guilty. Christ's yoke is easy, but it is a yoke nonetheless.


I have not been arguing against Calvinism. I stopped bring a Calvinist because I rejected Calvin's theory of Atonement. I have been arguing against PSA in favor of God's words.

 

[JesusFan]

No. I did not throw in ridiculous examples.

Those who follow Kenneth Copeland believe that he is a God-given teacher and that what he teaches is the Word of God properly understood.

Same with all of the rest. There is absolutely no difference. You believe what men you think to be God-given teachers have told you the Bible really teaches when properly understood.

Just like disciples if those I listed, your faith does not pass the test of Scripture. Instead you test your understanding of what the Bible teaches against what you believe is taught by the Bible. You have chosen to lean on your own understsnd rather than the words that come forth from God.

You take that as obnoxious and insulting, but it is not. It is a statement of fact.

The ONLY difference between you and any of those sects is the men you choose to follow are different.


No. I do not believe that our repentance saves us. I believe that God saves us znd thst we are cleansed by the blood of Christ.

The OT atonement foreshadows the New. The shedding of blood in the OT was necessary BUT it was the priest (not the ones who killed the animals) who applied the blood that made atonement. That is why in the OT it states the priest made atonement for the people, applying blood to the altar.

We are saved through the act of Christ. But it is not the easy-believism of PSA. It actually makes demands of us. God will not, not ever, clear the guilty. Christ's yoke is easy, but it is a yoke nonetheless.


I have not been arguing against Calvinism. I stopped bring a Calvinist because I rejected Calvin's theory of Atonement. I have been arguing against PSA in favor of God's words.

You though have NEVER answered just where the stored up wrath of God went to for those who were saved

 

[DaveXR650]

We are saved through the act of Christ. But it is not the easy-believism of PSA. It actually makes demands of us. God will not, not ever, clear the guilty. Christ's yoke is easy, but it is a yoke nonetheless.

Look at your own statement. If we are truly saved through the act of Christ then we are not saved by the demands made upon us. You have got to explain, if you are wishing not to look completely inconsistent, how the act of Christ saves us, but then in the same sentence, complying with demands that you say yourself free us from guilt. All advocates of PSA have done, which for some unexplained reason is abhorrent to you, is to dare to ask "why and what specifically Christ did to save us". Too many verses, like those in post #10, which you seem to be deliberately avoiding, say that Christ took our sin upon himself, and it could also be considered our chastisement.

The sad thing is, the people who advocated PSA were concerned with diminishing the work of Christ, making him a partial savior. They believed there would be many demands on us - as Christians. Just read Pilgrim's Progress. He is warned by Apollyon that most who join Christ's kingdom don't come to a prosperous or good end. And that book doesn't exactly describe easy believism. I'm sure Bunyan was enjoying that easy believism during the 12 years he spent in prison.

 

[JonC]

Look at your own statement. If we are truly saved through the act of Christ then we are not saved by the demands made upon us.

We are completely saved through the act of Christ.

If you are asking me if I believe it is imposdible for men to reject the light then my answer "no". I believe God's words.

If you are asking me if salvation places demands on us, that it is a yoke, that we must "put the hand to the plow" without looking back, that we are saved to do things predestined for us to do then my answer is "yes".

But the rejection of these truths is not what makes PSA "easy believism".


The easy way to see what I mean is for you to answer a question (you are asking what you already know).

What must you do in order to be forgiven of your sins?

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I will put together a more detailed description of what I believe. It will answer many of the questions you ask.

But right now I am using my phone. I work tonight so if it is quiet (it hasn't been, but hopefully it will be) I will get to work on it.

But my objection is to the additions PSA makes to the words of God. I do not understand the reason people make them after being confronted with "what is written" as I do not view "what is written" lacking.

So I have no need for PSA. Additionally, PSA redefines and replaces (at the least, via minimalization) many truths actually in the biblical text.

 

[DaveXR650]

What must you do in order to be forgiven of your sins?

I believe that you must come to Christ by faith, believing in him as Lord and Savior. There is confusion here, in that when initially coming to Christ, the office of Christ we are interested in is him as savior. So I don't have a problem with those who come as such, understanding only their jeopardy and need. But to deny him as Lord meaning to deny him as your authority, teacher, master and view that as optional, I do not accept as authentic Christianity. (To be sure, we don't sort all this out first, fix our behavior and then come - but to refuse Christ as Lord is fatal)

This is what I meant earlier, in that I don't have a problem if all you are saying is that the act of taking Christ as Lord and becoming a real disciple is just as essential as the atoning work of Christ. (Just as essential in the sense of both being required) But the subtleties of this is taken up by notable high Calvinists like Owen, as well as Richard Baxter. Baxter especially, I like because he gives a detailed account of the differences between what he said (which many Calvinists called legalism) and Roman Catholic salvation theology.

 

[JonC]

Too many verses, like those in post #10, which you seem to be deliberately avoiding, say that Christ took our sin upon himself, and it could also be considered our chastisement.

I never argued against those verses.

I believe that Jesus bore our sins and experienced the penalty due sin (the wages we, not Christ, earned).

I did not avoid those passages. I simply stated the fact that "what is written" in those passages differ greatly from what you say those passages teach.

If it helps to clarify - I completely agree with the passages quoted in post #10 (abd every passage quoted thus far). I completely reject the understanding you believe is taught by those passages.



Here is one example (for illustration) -

And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

I believe that this verse means that God made garments for Adam and Eve and He clothed them.

I understand this to show that God provided for Adam Eve garments.

You guys (or some of you) believe that this verse teaches that God sacrificed animals to provide for these garments, equating the slaying of the animals to punishment, therefore representing God punishing Christ as an atonment to Himself.

That conclusion is foreign to the text. It is eisegesis.

 

[JonC]

I believe that you must come to Christ by faith, believing in him as Lord and Savior.

So you believe that man saves himself by coming to God?

 

[DaveXR650]

I never argued against those verses.

Of course not. They clearly show penal substitution as they are written. You can't argue against them but you are too obstinate to admit that that is penal substitution.

 

[DaveXR650]

So you believe that man saves himself by coming to God?

Christians, who believe in PSA, have these debates as to in what way faith is a "condition", whether it itself can be described as saving, and whether it is possible to word it in any way to make it be truly considered a "work". But that's for people who all believe that the only meritorious cause of our salvation, or even the possibility of our salvation, to be the blood of Christ as a penal sacrifice on our behalf and in our stead. Don't come at me with this same juvenile stuff when you are obviously not even at the point of the merits of our salvation consisting in the work of Christ.