The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution, part 2

[JonC]

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.

No. You understand them to indicate PSA, but the text itself does not state PSA.

That is why you cannot, in all the passages you quoted, put in bold that Jesus died instead of us, that Jesus suffered God's wrath, etc.

What you do is blaspheme. The reason your words are blasphemous is rather than explaining how you get from the biblical text to your understanding you claim that your understanding is the text itself.


There are many instances where my understanding is not the biblical text itself. But when this occurs I explain how I arrived at my understanding and I do not lean on this understanding. When it comes to essental doctrines, these must be in the text of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

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.

Your understanding that men save themselves through their work of coming to God is not as "easy" as traditional PSA (not as easy as Calvininism or Arminianism). But it is still "easy believism".

 

[DaveXR650]

No. You understand them to indicate PSA, but the text itself does not state PSA.

I guess you are right in that the words do not say "this is PSA". But now you are getting more and more unhinged and silly. You have no answer and have resorted to saying that I'm blaspheming because I believe the same way most Baptists on this board do regarding those verses. I'll forgive you even though I don't think you are supposed to do that on this board. Besides, I believe that you are very close to being a Socinian. I'd watch out for that because that is indeed a heresy. You haven't gone all the way but many of your arguments against penal substitution sound like Socinus himself.

 

[DaveXR650]

Your understanding that men save themselves through their work of coming to God is not as "easy" as traditional PSA (not as easy as Calvininism or Arminianism). But it is still "easy believism".

This is especially shameful as you are supposed to be a moderator. I nowhere said that we save ourselves, but that the term comes up in debates over the role and meaning of saving faith. And the argument, from Provisionism and from Baxter, and many Baptists who are Arminian is that the act of putting your faith in Christ is salvific, not as providing any merit, but as the link of one to salvation.

 

[DaveXR650]

And from the above, a more subtle form of debate is when some of the Puritans like Owen describe saving faith in terms that suggest that within the faith itself is an intention to obey and follow Christ. Piper tried to do a similar thing more recently and caused controversy. Others believe saving faith is simply a belief in the propositions of the gospel. But this is between PSA holders. You have to be a PSA holder or you can't get admission to this argument. Sorry.

 

[JonC]

This is especially shameful as you are supposed to be a moderator. I nowhere said that we save ourselves,

Sorry. I must have misunderstood you.

What did you mean that the requirement to be saved is "we must come to Christ"?

I am not asking you to speak for others, just what you mean.