In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

DaveXR650 said:

Honestly I have not.

I didn't mean that I make him an unfortunate victim. But there is a popular take on the atonement that does. I wanted to make sure you weren't going there as many who reject penal substitution do and have. I am glad that you don't.

Yes. I would just say that when Jesus suffers the wages man has earned and was made sin while never sinning - since he was made sin and it was in relation to our sin then he is our substitute and penal substitution is a very plain and proper interpretation of this. Every penal substitution advocate that I have carefully read so far includes every one of the things you have mentioned above in their explanation of the atonement. I am referring specifically to Edwards and Owen, but even Baxter, who is accused of having a modified governmental theory or a hypothetical universalism clearly has the shed blood of Jesus being applied to us for the forgiveness of sins. Edwards also was accused of teaching a governmental theory but if you read him he tied it directly to penal substitution.

Like I said. If you can show this in the case of any Reformed theologian let me know, and for this subject I include Wesley, and Edwards. I mean really, Calvinism is most often accused of making everything part of God's redemptive plan, down to every minute detail of every action of every creature. I don't think it is wrong to focus on what the scriptures focus on which would be the shedding of blood by Christ and what this means to us who have found ourselves desiring redemption. How can a man be right with God, upon realizing, probably because of supernatural enlightenment, that he is a sinner and alienated from a God who is holy by nature and has a reaction to sin that involves wrath.

What you said above is good enough for me as I'm no theologian. But if Jesus suffers the wages I have earned, and was made sin (while himself never sinning) I would take as then that was my sin. If propitiation is involved then wrath of God is involved and it was due to what I did then I am looking at penal substitution plain as day.

Click to expand...

There are many who offer poor arguments, and dishonest arguments. I believed Penal Substitution Theory correct for most of my life and hated to see those arguments.


I get what you are saying. I have discussed this with others who hold Penal Substitution Theory and have found we sometimes talk past one another. I'm not stuck on labels.

For example, several times I asked those believing in Penal Substitution Theory to defend that it was God who punished Jesus or our sins laid on Him. What I got in reply was that they did not believe that, but they believed He died for our sins (which I believe).

Even more often I got that result when asking if Jesus experienced God's wrath. They answered "no", but at the same time thought that they believed Penal Substitution Theory.


There are many assumptions people accept as Biblical which are actually not in the Bible - Jesus experiencing God's wrath, Jesus suffering punishment instead of us, Adam dying spiritually, etc. Some of thesecwe inherited from the Catholic Church in a revised form via the Reformation. Some of these have been ingrained in our Christian culture for centuries. These have constituted traditional beliefs in many Western denominations. Tradition is something that is very difficult to overcome. Although moving towards a more biblical view, IMHO, is beneficial I don't know that it is necessary.

JesusFan said:

NT Wrong Theology here then?

Click to expand...

No. Those were passages in Galatians, 1 Peter, and Colossians. I just put them in one short paragraph (and left off references).

JonC said:

No. Those were passages in Galatians, 1 Peter, and Colossians. I just put them in one short paragraph (and left off references).

Click to expand...

Where did you place though the wrath and judgement of God passages regarding lost sinners?
As big theme under OT prophets was the concept of sinners storing up bowls of wrath towards them on the Day of Judgement

JesusFan said:

Where did you place though the wrath and judgement of God passages regarding lost sinners?
As big theme under OT prophets was the concept of sinners storing up bowls of wrath towards them on the Day of Judgement

Click to expand...

I place the wrath of God as being stored up for "the day of Wrath" when the righteous judgment will be revealed, and I place the judgment as having been given to the Son (who gives life to whom He wishes).

JonC said:

For example, several times I asked those believing in Penal Substitution Theory to defend that it was God who punished Jesus or our sins laid on Him. What I got in reply was that they did not believe that, but they believed He died for our sins (which I believe).

Click to expand...

I imagine they got it from Isaiah 53:6.

JonC said:

Even more often I got that result when asking if Jesus experienced God's wrath. They answered "no", but at the same time thought that they believed Penal Substitution Theory.

Click to expand...

Edwards deals extensively with this. He (although he came first timewise) would have disagreed with some modern Calvinists who in an attempt to wax eloquent portray God as "hating" Jesus at the time he was on the cross. He said "Christ suffered the wrath of God for men's sins in such a way as he was capable of". In other words, Jesus always knew he was suffering (for real) yet he also knew he himself had not sinned. This would by necessity be different than a condemned sinner. But he did suffer on the cross as "having a full sense of God's disposition toward sin, having a full sense of what sin deserves, and of having a full sense of the hatefulness of sin." "The punishment he endured for sin was qualitatively equal to what sinners deserve, though, due to his unique nature and the fact that his sins were imputed, not inherent, his experience of the suffering was unique".

I think you would enjoy Edwards take on this. Also keep in mind what J.I. Packer said re the penal substitution theory of the atonement. It was "a model setting forth the meaning of the atonement". It is not a system purporting to explain all the mechanics of the atonement. As such the theory leaves unexplored a number of the atonement's deeper mysteries, such as how Christ could be "made sin" for the elect, or exactly how the union of Christ and his elect was achieved. (Packer - "What did the Cross Achieve).

DaveXR650 said:

I imagine they got it from Isaiah 53:6.

Edwards deals extensively with this. He (although he came first timewise) would have disagreed with some modern Calvinists who in an attempt to wax eloquent portray God as "hating" Jesus at the time he was on the cross. He said "Christ suffered the wrath of God for men's sins in such a way as he was capable of". In other words, Jesus always knew he was suffering (for real) yet he also knew he himself had not sinned. This would by necessity be different than a condemned sinner. But he did suffer on the cross as "having a full sense of God's disposition toward sin, having a full sense of what sin deserves, and of having a full sense of the hatefulness of sin." "The punishment he endured for sin was qualitatively equal to what sinners deserve, though, due to his unique nature and the fact that his sins were imputed, not inherent, his experience of the suffering was unique".

I think you would enjoy Edwards take on this. Also keep in mind what J.I. Packer said re the penal substitution theory of the atonement. It was "a model setting forth the meaning of the atonement". It is not a system purporting to explain all the mechanics of the atonement. As such the theory leaves unexplored a number of the atonement's deeper mysteries, such as how Christ could be "made sin" for the elect, or exactly how the union of Christ and his elect was achieved. (Packer - "What did the Cross Achieve).

Click to expand...

I agree that God caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. That is not in question. He bore our sins bodily on the cross.

But I do not believe they could have gotten the idea that this was God punishing Jesus instead of us from Isaiah 53:6. People use several verses in Isaiah 53 to support Penal Substitution Theory, but only by lifting verses. As a whole Isaiah 53 fairly well explains that it was the wicked who viewed God as punishing Jesus (vs.4-5, 8, 9-11). People make the error of starting with a position and then looking for verses to support that position.

My comment, however, was that those people said they believed Penal substitution theory but did not believe God punished Jesus.

I like Edwards and Packer. But both come from a Reformed background (both held Penal Substitution Theory as presuppositions prior to achieving theological fame). A Roman Catholic priest would aptly point to Aquinas as a better model of atonement.

As Christians we should not hold tradition in doctrine so firmly. We need to look at what is actually written in God's Word. Tradition is simply not Scripture.

Here is my concern:

I believe that this is a foundational topic. If we get this part very wrong then anything we build on our doctrine of the Cross is wrong.

It was not until the 16th Century that anybody claimed that Jesus experienced punishment from God on the Cross in our place (that idea of justice was accepted prior to this time).

Like I said, and here it applies to me, tradition should not dictate doctrine. So is it possible that this theory is correct and it just took Western philosophical changes concerning justice and a millenia and a half to be discovered (that Christians, to include the Early Church) were ignorant until the 16th Century)?

Yes. That is possible. I believe it unlikely, but have to admit it is possible. So then we have to forget Penal Substitution Theory completely and go to God's Word to see if "it is written". Problem is it is not.

JonC said:

I place the wrath of God as being stored up for "the day of Wrath" when the righteous judgment will be revealed, and I place the judgment as having been given to the Son (who gives life to whom He wishes).

Click to expand...

Will each sinner then be personal accountable to God and suffer His divine wrath and condemnation at that time?

JonC said:

Have you considered that Adam did not initially enjoy the fellowship with God that he enjoyed in the Garden? I believe there is a reason Scripture makes the point Adam was created outside of Eden and exiled to the land from which he was created.

I believe you are missing an important aspect of Scripture when it comes to Christ's death. Christ suffering and dying under the powers of this world doesn't make Christ an unfortunate victim. Christ laid down His own life. This was God's predetermined plan. The Serpent striking ("crushing") His heel was followed by Him crushing the Serpent's head.

Christ's death was essential for many reasons. I just mentioned one. But to truely be "the Son of Man" (Son of Adam) Jesus would have to suffer the wages man has earned (death) and be made sin while never sinning. He would have to be obedient where Adam was not (obedient to death). He would need to put together death in the flesh (Peter explained this well). And God the Father would need to declare His suffering and death unjust (which Scripture repeatedly declares), vindicated by raising Him to life, and giving Him a name that is above every name.

We cannot look at Jesus' death in isolation from God's redemptive plan. His birth, life, death, and resurrection is one act of redemption. The issue I have with some presentations is that by extracting Jesus' death and focusing on that one aspect of obedience as if it were the entire redemptive plan it becomes impossible to grasp biblical redemption.

Click to expand...

Would see though that this was part of eternal plan of the Trinity to have the Son assume human flesh, and to have the Father Himself directly invoved in the wrath and judgement and condemnation we all deserve to be poured upon the Lord Jesus, as He lietrally became the Lamb of God atoning as the great Sin bearer, and aat that time experienced what all lost sinners will in the Final Judgement. Rome did not get Him oin the ultimate sense, nor Jewish sinners, nor satan, nor evil system but he allowed the Father to "get Him" as they had agreed upon from eternity past.

The preception remains in Isaiah 53:6, . . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . is being understood as a penal substitution.

JonC said:

"Substitution" in Penal Substitution Theory refers to individuals and their sins under the theme of divine justice.

This was a reworking of the Roman Catholic theory which refers to original sin under the theme of divine merit.

Representative is the idea that Jesus is an Adam type (the Second Adam). I think you have it. It is a different type of man, or a different race (not based on ethnicity but on being born of the Spirit).

Click to expand...

only penal atonement accounts forour our deserve wrath and condemnation can be fully satisfied. as Jesus literally willingly accepted to pay in our stead our sin debt and obligation to the Father

JonC said:

I agree that God caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. That is not in question. He bore our sins bodily on the cross.

But I do not believe they could have gotten the idea that this was God punishing Jesus instead of us from Isaiah 53:6. People use several verses in Isaiah 53 to support Penal Substitution Theory, but only by lifting verses. As a whole Isaiah 53 fairly well explains that it was the wicked who viewed God as punishing Jesus (vs.4-5, 8, 9-11). People make the error of starting with a position and then looking for verses to support that position.

My comment, however, was that those people said they believed Penal substitution theory but did not believe God punished Jesus.

I like Edwards and Packer. But both come from a Reformed background (both held Penal Substitution Theory as presuppositions prior to achieving theological fame). A Roman Catholic priest would aptly point to Aquinas as a better model of atonement.

As Christians we should not hold tradition in doctrine so firmly. We need to look at what is actually written in God's Word. Tradition is simply not Scripture.

Here is my concern:

I believe that this is a foundational topic. If we get this part very wrong then anything we build on our doctrine of the Cross is wrong.

It was not until the 16th Century that anybody claimed that Jesus experienced punishment from God on the Cross in our place (that idea of justice was accepted prior to this time).

Like I said, and here it applies to me, tradition should not dictate doctrine. So is it possible that this theory is correct and it just took Western philosophical changes concerning justice and a millenia and a half to be discovered (that Christians, to include the Early Church) were ignorant until the 16th Century)?

Yes. That is possible. I believe it unlikely, but have to admit it is possible. So then we have to forget Penal Substitution Theory completely and go to God's Word to see if "it is written". Problem is it is not.

Click to expand...

Jesus received from the father all that lost sinners will at the time of their Great White Throne Judgement, and Jesus was not an "innocent victim", as He from eternity past agreed to take upon Himself for his own people their sin debt/wrath/judgement/condemnation they all had duly earned

JonC said:

There are many who offer poor arguments, and dishonest arguments. I believed Penal Substitution Theory correct for most of my life and hated to see those arguments.


I get what you are saying. I have discussed this with others who hold Penal Substitution Theory and have found we sometimes talk past one another. I'm not stuck on labels.

For example, several times I asked those believing in Penal Substitution Theory to defend that it was God who punished Jesus or our sins laid on Him. What I got in reply was that they did not believe that, but they believed He died for our sins (which I believe).

Even more often I got that result when asking if Jesus experienced God's wrath. They answered "no", but at the same time thought that they believed Penal Substitution Theory.


There are many assumptions people accept as Biblical which are actually not in the Bible - Jesus experiencing God's wrath, Jesus suffering punishment instead of us, Adam dying spiritually, etc. Some of thesecwe inherited from the Catholic Church in a revised form via the Reformation. Some of these have been ingrained in our Christian culture for centuries. These have constituted traditional beliefs in many Western denominations. Tradition is something that is very difficult to overcome. Although moving towards a more biblical view, IMHO, is beneficial I don't know that it is necessary.

Click to expand...

jesus agreed to let Himself be just as being lietrally like sin incarnate as the sin bearing lamb of God

We just disagree. And the reason is that what you say here is exactly what I would call penal substitution.

JonC said:

I agree that God caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. That is not in question. He bore our sins bodily on the cross.

Click to expand...

What I described above from Edwards I think adequately describes what happened and did not happen in that no, God was not mad at Jesus, but Jesus did experience the punishment due us and a separation from the perfect oneness he had with the Father temporarily.

JonC said:

My comment, however, was that those people said they believed Penal substitution theory but did not believe God punished Jesus.

Click to expand...

If you mean that God has to punish Jesus in a manner where God is truly angry with Jesus then either Edwards was not an advocate of penal substitution or that premise is not true. When discussing theology I understand we all make logical conclusions based on what someone says. And you have a right to do that too. All I'm saying is that your conclusion is not the final word and you can have an opinion that those people can't still believe in penal substitution but they have every right to disagree. As Edwards would have said, there is a sense in which God punished Jesus, and we have record of the things that happened that day. But there is still the fact that you are not required to take that as God hating Jesus at that time or being personally angry with Jesus. That is not required for penal substitution. A family giving up a perfect lamb they had raised for the purpose of sacrifice did not have to hate the lamb as it was sacrificed.

JonC said:

I believe that this is a foundational topic. If we get this part very wrong then anything we build on our doctrine of the Cross is wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, and in that sense the early church, going all the way back to our scriptures had the foundation right. Jesus is Lord and he can forgive sins. That is the foundation but how? Scripture has numerous mentions of shedding of blood for remission of sins, the church being purchased by his blood and so on. I have the same concern with anyone who denies penal substitution because right or wrong, I see everyone who does so as trying to move toward a theology where the cross and shedding of Christ's blood first becomes either symbolic of God's government, or an example to provoke our pity and love, or just to show what God thinks of sin. From there it indeed is easy to make the cross not absolutely essential for our salvation as it would be if the cross actually accomplished a real thing and not just an object lesson. Who is in danger of messing with the foundation?

The only thing I see as developing is the organization of thoughts and scriptures into a cohesive theology. I totally reject your charges of this not being supported by scripture. I do think the atonement has aspects otherwise as Packer said above and have no problem with that. The early church made some mistakes as you readily see if you read them. The truth we have in all the raw scripture we have available is overwhelming and it is also true that early church fathers had limited access to good, complete translations of the word. Read Augustine's confessions and you see that even at the end of the early church period scripture was hard to come by in an accurate translation. They didn't have much to go on.

The only thing I would add is that I do fault the Reformers and everyone from the later periods who seem to as they developed theological principles, relish in pronouncing anathemas on everyone who didn't immediately comply with all their conclusions. It seems to me that believing that Jesus is God come in the flesh, that He is the Christ and that he can forgive sins was sufficient for the early church. Those who believed that and also then desired to follow his teachings were the saved. But the fact that some aspect of theology was not fully developed at a time does not mean that it is not scriptural, or that it is more prone to error simply because it is later.

JesusFan said:

only penal atonement accounts forour our deserve wrath and condemnation can be fully satisfied. as Jesus literally willingly accepted to pay in our stead our sin debt and obligation to the Father

Click to expand...

This is a false assumption. While Penal Substitution Theory does account for guilt, it is far from the only position that does (and far from the best insofar as human accountability).

JesusFan said:

Jesus received from the father all that lost sinners will at the time of their Great White Throne Judgement, and Jesus was not an "innocent victim", as He from eternity past agreed to take upon Himself for his own people their sin debt/wrath/judgement/condemnation they all had duly earned

Click to expand...

When you debate theology with somebody who rejects your presuppositions you have to do so via Scripture - not by repeatedly posting your opinion or theory while stating it is correct.

JonC said:

This is a false assumption. While Penal Substitution Theory does account for guilt, it is far from the only position that does (and far from the best insofar as human accountability).

When you debate theology with somebody who rejects your presuppositions you have to do so via Scripture - not by repeatedly posting your opinion or theory while stating it is correct.

Click to expand...

What does sin bearer, suffering servant mean to you then, as the father did forsake Jesus while upon that Cross while their "business was being transacted out"

DaveXR650 said:

We just disagree. And the reason is that what you say here is exactly what I would call penal substitution.

Click to expand...

Then we may actually agree more than others may realize. I use "the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement" because I attended seminary and was required to be very specific with my words.

It may matter if we were in graduate school but talking among one another I am more interested in content than in labels.

JonC said:

This is a false assumption. While Penal Substitution Theory does account for guilt, it is far from the only position that does (and far from the best insofar as human accountability).

When you debate theology with somebody who rejects your presuppositions you have to do so via Scripture - not by repeatedly posting your opinion or theory while stating it is correct.

Click to expand...

Where is the wrath of God appeased in any other Atonement theory though, as others see it as good moral example, died as innocent put to death by evil powers eyc?

JesusFan said:

What does sin bearer, suffering servant mean to you then, as the father did forsake Jesus while upon that Cross while their "business was being transacted out"

Click to expand...

"Sin bearer" means exactly what it says. Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross.

"Suffering servant" means exactly what it says. The Servant suffers.

"Forsake" means exactly what it says - Jesus was forsaken to suffer and die. Read Isaiah 53 and you will see that, although forsaken to suffer and die, the Servant was never abandoned. Not only that, the Servant suffered under unjust oppression.

We have to trust God and His Word rather than these theories and traditions.

JesusFan said:

Where is the wrath of God appeased in any other Atonement theory though, as others see it as good moral example, died as innocent put to death by evil powers eyc?

Click to expand...

In Christ Himself. Men still have to die to, and in, the flesh because this is a consequence of sin. But God gave all judgment to the Son. The Son saves whom He wills.

Christianity does not hold the pagan idea of divine appeasement, which ultimately is a perversion of Vhristianity itself. This type of salvation is said to be foolishness to the pagans of the day precisely because it did not meet their expectations.

Silverhair said:

Pro_3:5-7 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil.

Jos_24:15
And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Joh_7:17
“If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.”

Rev_3:20
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.”

1Co_10:13
No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Rom_10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Rom_10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

Mat_6:15 "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Rom_6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,

Mar_1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."

I could go on but I am sure you get the idea. The bible shows man's God given free will.

"God took the ultimate risk: He gave us free will, and in doing so, took the risk that we would reject Him; that our choice would result in eternal separation from Him.

Creatures that are free to love must be free to choose.

God's love and gift of freedom are genuine - so genuine that they include the power to choose evil and, if we wish, to freely send ourselves to Hell."
Kenneth Miller, in Finding Darwin's God [pp. 285-291]

Click to expand...

(Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(Rom 5:12 KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(Jhn 3:19 KJV) And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
(Jhn 3:3 KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(1Pe 1:23 KJV) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Jn 3:3 "...Except a man be born again..." This spiritual birth can only happen by God's will, not by the will of man.