• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

3 Reasons I changed my mind about Penal Substitution

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anyone can point to the “clobber” verses that present Jesus as a substitute for sin’s penalty, such as Isaiah 53:5 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. Plenty of people find ways around these to read the cross another way—and with proof texts, that’s always possible. Yet as I began to read Scripture more deeply, I came to see these texts in the light of Scripture’s great themes and typologies. I could see no other way to interpret them—the animal skins in Genesis 3, the ram in Genesis 22, the Passover lamb and the firstborn sons, the darkness of judgment the night of the exodus from Egypt and the darkness that fell as Jesus died, all the undeniable language of propitiation and the blood on the mercy seat, and so much more.

Actually reading the Scriptures in their cohesive entirety, and seeing the Old Testament repeatedly preview the gospel, showed me that Jesus bearing our sin and its penalty is central—not peripheral, and not artificially imposed—to the story’s vast sweep.

3 Reasons I Changed My Mind About Penal Substitution
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Penal Substitution, the Biblical and ONLY way. The article you link is by someone who really does not understand this crucially important Doctrine. Galatians 3:13 is one of the strongest verses in the Bible that teaches this, which Daniel Hames fails to address, and therefore very selective in his theology.

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
The real use and purpose of the formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our Lord's vicarious obedience. The truth expressed rests upon the recognition that the law of God has both penal sanctions and positive demands. It demands not only the full discharge of its precepts but also the infliction of penalty for all infractions and shortcomings. It is this twofold demand of the law of God which is taken into account when we speak of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ as the vicar of his people came under the curse and condemnation due to sin and he also fulfilled the law of God in all its positive requirements. In other words, he took care of the guilt of sin and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness. He perfectly met both the penal and the preceptive requirements of God's law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the latter. Christ's obedience was vicarious in the bearing of the full judgment of God upon sin, and it was vicarious in the full discharge of the demands of righteousness. His obedience becomes the ground of the remission of sin and of actual justification.

The Nature of the Atonement by John Murray

And the dangerous modern trend against the Bible's Teaching

"Made a Curse for Us" | Banner of Truth UK
 
B

Bassoonery

Active Member
He changed his mind suddenly because he read Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke. That says it all.

I agree that the whole OT points to it, but for me the simplest "clobber verse" is John 1:29: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I gave this as a pre-Easter memory verse to our school kids just a few weeks ago, so that they would be ready to respond to anyone who doubted that Jesus died for our sins. John knew it the moment he saw him, before he even performed his first miracle.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
1 Corinthians 15:3, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died FOR our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"

ὑπέρ, in place of, instead of

1 Peter 2:24, "who His own self bore OUR sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed"
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bassoonery said:
He changed his mind suddenly because he read Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke. That says it all.

I agree that the whole OT points to it, but for me the simplest "clobber verse" is John 1:29: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I gave this as a pre-Easter memory verse to our school kids just a few weeks ago, so that they would be ready to respond to anyone who doubted that Jesus died for our sins. John knew it the moment he saw him, before he even performed his first miracle.
Click to expand...

Had to smile when I saw your reference to John 1:29, my favorite verse.

Penal Substitution theory sails under false colors. It is a Trojan Horse for Calvinism's Limited Atonement. The issue is not whether Christ death provided the substitunary sacrifice necessary for the remission of sin. Christ's resurrection demonstrates it did. The issue is not the error of pitting one Person of the Trinity against another. And the issue is certainly not the mistaken views of fallible scholars.

Happy Easter
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Van said:
It is a Trojan Horse for Calvinism's Limited Atonement
Click to expand...

Van, again your complete ignorance of Biblical theology is apparant! I am NOT a Calvinist, or Reformed in my theology, and I have since the day that I was born again on 24th February 1982, I have 100% believed in Penal Substitution, as the ONLY teaching from the Bible, for the Death of Jesus Christ. Unless you are a Roman Catholic, or a follower of the rank heretic, Steve Chalke? Show from the Holy Bible that Penal Substitution is wrong. I can guarantee you, that you CANNOT!
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
Van, again your complete ignorance of Biblical theology is apparant! I am NOT a Calvinist, or Reformed in my theology, and I have since the day that I was born again on 24th February 1982, I have 100% believed in Penal Substitution, as the ONLY teaching from the Bible, for the Death of Jesus Christ. Unless you are a Roman Catholic, or a follower of the rank heretic, Steve Chalke? Show from the Holy Bible that Penal Substitution is wrong. I can guarantee you, that you CANNOT!
Click to expand...
Sir, any mindless twit can shout "you are a follower of a rank heretic." Question, did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? If He paid for the specific sins of those never to be saved, why does God require double payment during their torment in the afterlife? I expect you will not answer the question.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Van said:
Sir, any mindless twit can shout "you are a follower of a rank heretic." Question, did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? If He paid for the specific sins of those never to be saved, why does God require double payment during their torment in the afterlife? I expect you will not answer the question.
Click to expand...

Van, do you even understand what Penal Substitution is? :eek:
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
Van, do you even understand what Penal Substitution is? :eek:
Click to expand...
As predicted, no answer to a simple question.

Question, did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? If He paid for the specific sins of those never to be saved, why does God require double payment during their torment in the afterlife?

Tic Tok ...
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
As predicted, no answer to a simple question.

Question, did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? If He paid for the specific sins of those never to be saved, why does God require double payment during their torment in the afterlife?

Tic Tok ...
Click to expand...

He doesnt now answer his question
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Van said:
As predicted, no answer to a simple question.

Question, did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? If He paid for the specific sins of those never to be saved, why does God require double payment during their torment in the afterlife?

Tic Tok ...
Click to expand...

It is clear from yet another nonsense response from you, that you don't understand what Penal Substitution really is! :rolleyes:
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
how about you showing from the Bible that Penal Substitution is wrong, instead of quoting from someone who has Steve Chalke as his reference? Your OP shows that you don't understand this Doctrine
Click to expand...

Umm the op doesnt show its wrong and I dont believe its wrong. Not sure how you got off track.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top