Featured Isaiah 53 doesn't support penal substitution

Thanks for the citation; I'll check it out.

As far as the "penal substitution advocates"... I'm not really interested in what they say as much as I am interested in Scripture. Now, certain "advocates" give logic, etc. more than anything else. Other advocates give exegetical detail, evidence, and argument--and these are the ones worth reading and interacting with and evaluating.

Furthermore, basing one's understanding and approach on those theologians of the past, can be helpful only insofar as they are in line with scripture. On the other hand, to reference those said theologians as the authority, is like trying advocate for the world being flat merely because old, long-dead science people thought it was--an unhelpful approach at best.

The Archangel

 

HERE, HERE! BRAVO!

THE WORDS of A SAVED CHILD of GOD!

I like this a lot, too;

"The logic is clear in all forms of penal substitution that Jesus’ death is just, that is deserved. Penal substitution defender Donald Macleod says, “Christ’s death, despite its dark, horrific backdrop, was just, because it was the death of the voluntary, divine sin-bearer, whose sacrifice satisfied God that it was right for him to forgive the sins of the world.” He says again that at the cross the “penalty was right” and that “it could only be right if it was deserved.” The Catholic poet Dante states in his Paradiso that the cross was God’s “just vengeance” upon human sin, and “Thus was the doom inflicted by the Cross, if measured by the nature so assumed, the most just penalty that ever was.” According to Dante, Jesus on the Cross assumes a fallen, sinful human nature, and suffers the most just penalty that ever was. The writers of Pierced for our Transgressions state that, “God acted justly in punishing him, for he saw him as guilty by virtue of his union with those whose sins he bore” and “Jesus is justly condemned by God for sins imputed to him.” Thus, it is clear that according to penal substitution, Jesus’ death was just. The reason why Jesus died was to satisfy God’s justice, specifically the penal or retributive demands of his justice. This is what it means for Jesus to “satisfy the wrath of God” according to penal substitution."

 

Christ's payment for sins is just. There is nothing in God's word to treach otherwise.

 

You quote a bunch of guys who have varying views on the atonement. All that shows is that there are multiple views on the atonement. Also, like with Anselm and with Caesarius you don't quote their respective predominate beliefs on the atonement but use quotes from other things they said. Which is fine - unless you're trying to prove something. I can show you places where Owen talks about Christ as Victor and recapitulation but if I were to try to foist that off as his main view of the atonement it would be ridiculous.

No you have not shown one particular view consistently. Jon C isn't even sure what it is. The thing you have to remember is that as Caesarius of Arles said in the writings I read, when you look at Christ as Victor or any of the cosmic aspects of the atonement, you have to realize that God had the power to defeat Satan by direct action on his part. Our sin as humans, sin in Adam as well as individual sin, is what has caused God to come with this atonement that in some way made it needful for Christ to die and suffer as he did - rather than to just enact judgement upon the forces of evil directly. It seems to me that out of love for us that God devised a plan that would allow him to redeem us, remain righteous and just according to his nature, and then go after the forces of evil according to his sovereign will. There will always be, at the core level an aspect of the atonement where Christ is dealing directly with our sin which is somehow put on him.

 

Yes. And he does this repeatedly. I don't know if he realizes that in the sense of Jesus personally, his death had to be unjust because he had to be innocent or he would have been unqualified to be the substitute. He takes one the main points of penal substitution and turns it on it's head as if that is what makes penal substitution invalid!

 

This passage does not summarize your view. In fact, it talks about us formerly being children of wrath but now due to God's grace we have been made alive. It really doesn't say anything about the atonement directly except that as it relates to wrath which is what you can't bring yourself to admit. It talks about us walking according to the course of this world and the only damage specifically mentioned is being children of wrath, not that we might harm ourselves. I would reevaluate my stance on this if I were you.

 

If Christ's death was just God would not have raised Him from the dead:

who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 1 Pet 2:23

The fact that God raised Him from the dead shows that God declared Christ to be righteous, after the Jews [The Serpent] had unrighteously judged Him to be worthy of death.

 

He is not lying. Strong, sound exegesis supports Penal Substitution.

 

Well, that's cinches it then, Piper has spoken, no need to carry this atonement theory discussion any further.

 

...don't hold your breath.

 

​

Maybe your page numbers are different.... But these quotes do not appear as quoted in my copy of Pierced for our Transgressions. There are parts of your quote(s) that come close, but they are not the same.

The Archangel

 

All people are in need of a substitute since all are guilty of sinning against the holy God. All sin deserves punishment because all sin is personal rebellion against God himself. While animal sacrifices took on the guilt of God’s people in the OT, these sacrifices could never fully atone for the sins of man. For that, Jesus Christ came and died in the place of his people (substitution), taking upon himself the full punishment that they deserved (penal). While there are other theories of the atonement, which point to other valid aspects of what happened in Christ’s death, the penal-substitutionary element of the crucifixion secures all other benefits that come to God’s people through the death of their representative.