3 Reasons I changed my mind about Penal Substitution

[37818]

Penal substitution as taught in the gospel is not mere theory.

 

[Yeshua1]

this is where you go wrong. Jesus willing gave Himself for the sins of the whole world, it is not as some have supposed, that the Father "punished" Jesus against His will, to go to the cross. This is humanistic rubbish. Hebrews 12:2, "looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God"

Hebrews 10:5

 

[Reformed1689]

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!

This is true. Not everything is about the Calvinism debate.

 

[Van]

That you can read John Murray and not see Redemption accomplished and applied betrays an inability still there.Murray clearly sees the Accomplishment of Redemption as the work of All three persons of the trinity which you miss.

More change the subject to attack the opponent, more appeal to people rather than the inspired text.

 

[Van]

Message of Reconciliation

Christ's death bought everyone out of the Old Covenant, and into the New Covenant in His blood. Those to be saved and those never to be saved, 2 Peter 2:1 Any other viewpoint denies 1 Timothy 2:6 Only those spiritually placed into Christ undergo the washing of regeneration where the penalty for all their specific sins, past, present and future is removed. Titus 3:5

 

[Revmitchell]

Its hard to imagine that one could read through and understand fully the sacrifices of the OT and not see how they point to substitutionary atonement. Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,

vs. 22 says And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

Leviticus 1:3-4
English Standard Version

3 “If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. 4 He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.


In fact Paul made SA clear when he said For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21


It just doesnt get any clearer than that

 

[Revmitchell]

More change the subject to attack the opponent, more appeal to people rather than the inspired text.

bub you are about as adversarial as they come

 

[Van]

bub you are about as adversarial as they come

Note the personal attack, with nothing on the topic. This is all they have folks, Penal Substitution Theory is simply a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement. It denies Christ died for all humankind. Nuff said.

 

[JonC]

this is where you go wrong. Jesus willingly gave Himself for the sins of the whole world, it is not as some have supposed, that the Father "punished" Jesus against His will, to go to the cross. This is humanistic rubbish. Hebrews 12:2, "looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God"

Sorry, bro, but you are WAY off.

I never claimed that Jesus did not give Himself for the sins of the whole world.

I never claimed that Penal Substitution Theory denies Jesus willingly gave Himself.

I never claimed Penal Substitution Theory or anyone else supposes God punished Jesus against His will.

The ONLY humanistic rubbish seems to be those things you have imagined me saying.

That is why I dislike the topic here. Adherents of Penal Substitution Theory often attribute to those who reject the theory ideas that never crossed the lips of their opponents.

While it is easy to argue strawman such arguments are not edifying. The ground gained is but a mirage.

 

[JonC]

bub you are about as adversarial as they come

What about me? Do I at lest come on 2nd. (when I'm trying)???

 

[JonC]

Penal substitution as taught in the gospel is not mere theory.

I agree. But Penal Substitution is not taught in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Penal Substitution Theory is probably the biggest detractor of the gospel (the biggest "Christian myth") today.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van,

Penal Substitution theory sails under false colors

.

The teaching of penal substitution is found everywhere in the bible.
The OP. describes the experience of a person who began searching and has come to see it in all the types and shadows leading up to the cross.

he might well have other issues to work through, but here he says he has found the key puzzle piece s that have allowed him to have light on this part of scripture.

It is a Trojan Horse for Calvinism's Limited Atonement.

Trojan Horse.....no, not at all. He saw it all over the place and quite openly. Of course, you resist this teaching so you seek to deny what the OP. has stated.

The issue is not whether Christ death provided the substitunary sacrifice necessary for the remission of sin.

Yes, that is indeed the issue if it is an actual substitution taking place.
You know it follows, so you scramble to cover it over

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.

,
The issue is the love of the triune God in th Covenant of Redemption seeking and effectually saving each and every elect sinner.

 

[Iconoclast]

More change the subject to attack the opponent, more appeal to people rather than the inspired text.

You ignore the "inspired text" and often add words to it to suit your fancy, but of course, this is to be rejected at every turn.
In the OP. an article was offered to describe a person spending time and searching scripture for truth. he tells us he thinks he sees it now. We should be glad to hear of a person who sincerely looked for truth on this issue.
Instead, you pop out of the woodwork like a german U boat in those ww2 movies, looking to torpedo the supply ships.
You should have rejoiced if this person made progress in his walk,instead of launching on tubes 3 and four...trying to sink his positive report.

 

[JonC]

Van,

.

The teaching of penal substitution is found everywhere in the bible.
The OP. describes the experience of a person who began searching and has come to see it in all the types and shadows leading up to the cross.

he might well have other issues to work through, but here he says he has found the key puzzle piece s that have allowed him to have light on this part of scripture.



Trojan Horse.....no, not at all. He saw it all over the place and quite openly. Of course, you resist this teaching so you seek to deny what the OP. has stated.



Yes, that is indeed the issue if it is an actual substitution taking place.
You know it follows, so you scramble to cover it over

,
The issue is the love of the triune God in th Covenant of Redemption seeking and effectually saving each and every elect sinner.

Hey @Iconoclast ,

I think it may be good to define what we mean by penal substitution and Penal Substitution Theory.

Often the defense goes along the lines of Christ bearing our sin, becoming sin for us, the chastened for our well being falling upon Christ, Him bring pierced for out transgressions, God being pleased to crush Him ..... etc.

But the objection seems never to be those things (at least here).

I need to define Penal Substitution Theory as well (what I mean by the term).

I view Penal Substitution Theory as including all of those things mentioned (all those passages we agree with and cling to), but with the addition of ideas of God punishing Christ for the sins of those being saved, of Christ experiencing God's wrath, and of the necessity for God to punish sin in order to (or as the means of) forgiving the sinner.

How would you define the Doctrine of Penal Substitution?

 

[Van]

The idea of PST is Christ died for the specific sins of the elect (chosen individually before creation). Thus Christ did not lay down His life as a ransom for all, but only all the elect. The theory is precluded by numerous passages in scripture.
James 2:5 teaches people are chosen based on being rich in faith and that love God, which precludes being chosen before being created.
PST is a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement. This fact should be accepted or refuted, not ignored.

Here is the actual biblical doctrine of Reconciliation:

Christ's death bought everyone out of the Old Covenant, and into the New Covenant in His blood. Those to be saved and those never to be saved, 2 Peter 2:1 Any other viewpoint denies 1 Timothy 2:6 Only those spiritually placed into Christ undergo the washing of regeneration where the penalty for all their specific sins, past, present and future is removed. Titus 3:5

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

I think it may be good to define what we mean by penal substitution

How would you define the Doctrine of Penal Substitution?

Hello JonC
I go about it somewhat backwards to keep it simple.
1]Does Sin have a PENALTY?
2]Will sinners who die in Adam be subject to that penalty at the White Throne judgment?
3]There is no second chance.

As a penal substitute.....Jesus as Surety, and Mediator, Great High Priest, and the Lamb of God, Took upon Himself the Sins and punishment [penalty]due to the Elect, and in place of that wrath, He graced us with His perfect righteousness.
Whatever we would have received at the White Throne judgment as sinners under God's wrath, has been turned away[propitiated] in time and actually fully and perfectly.
It was not a potential propitiation, reconciliation, expiation of sins, but rather a once for all time finished act that was 100% Covenantal. It was in the words of John Murray, REDEMPTION ACCOMPLISHED AND APPLIED.
Whatever God required was perfectly satisfied, The Father was well pleased with His Son.

The penalty is found;
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
mt13:
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth

mt25:
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Whatever is described in some of these verses is something the elect will no longer be subject to.
A Divine substitute has taken my penalty and satisfied the Righteous requirements of the law of God and the righteous judgment to come.

 

[Van]

Does sin have a penalty? Yes, but that fact is not at issue. Obfuscation on display.

Will sinners who die in Adam be subject to that penalty at the White Throne judgment? Yes, but that fact is not at issue. Obfuscation on display.

There is no second chance (for salvation if we die in Adam?) Nope, but this fact is not at issue. More obfuscation.

What is at issue?

Did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? PST says no, scripture says yes.

Were those to be saved and those never to be saved "bought" with His blood? PST says no, scripture says yes.

When is the penalty of sin removed from those saved? When Christ died according to PST, when God puts the individual into Christ where they undergo the washing of regeneration according to scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Does sin have a penalty? Yes, but that fact is not at issue. Obfuscation on display.

Will sinners who die in Adam be subject to that penalty at the White Throne judgment? Yes, but that fact is not at issue. Obfuscation on display.

There is no second chance (for salvation if we die in Adam?) Nope, but this fact is not at issue. More obfuscation.

What is at issue?

Did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? PST says no, scripture says yes.

Were those to be saved and those never to be saved "bought" with His blood? PST says no, scripture says yes.

When is the penalty of sin removed from those saved? When Christ died according to PST, when God puts the individual into Christ where they undergo the washing of regeneration according to scripture.

Looks like your lack of the Covenant nature of salvation is what is on display. To suggest the question does sin have a penalty is not a valid discussion point is missing the gospel.

 

[1689Dave]

really?, check this out, God Who is The Saviour of the Human Race

You don't understand how grace saves people. You still end up with the self-righteous attempting to save themselves through works that cannot save. If all have Christ's imputed righteousness, which obviously they do not, then all are saved no matter what they do.

 

[JonC]

JonC,



Hello JonC
I go about it somewhat backwards to keep it simple.
1]Does Sin have a PENALTY?
2]Will sinners who die in Adam be subject to that penalty at the White Throne judgment?
3]There is no second chance.

As a penal substitute.....Jesus as Surety, and Mediator, Great High Priest, and the Lamb of God, Took upon Himself the Sins and punishment [penalty]due to the Elect, and in place of that wrath, He graced us with His perfect righteousness.
Whatever we would have received at the White Throne judgment as sinners under God's wrath, has been turned away[propitiated] in time and actually fully and perfectly.
It was not a potential propitiation, reconciliation, expiation of sins, but rather a once for all time finished act that was 100% Covenantal. It was in the words of John Murray, REDEMPTION ACCOMPLISHED AND APPLIED.
Whatever God required was perfectly satisfied, The Father was well pleased with His Son.

The penalty is found;
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
mt13:
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth

mt25:
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Whatever is described in some of these verses is something the elect will no longer be subject to.
A Divine substitute has taken my penalty and satisfied the Righteous requirements of the law of God and the righteous judgment to come.

Thank you, Brother, for your detailed reply.

I absolutely agree with all of the passages you have provided and with a lot of your cmments/ interpretation.

I agree that in Christ we escape the wrath to come, that Jesus as surety, and mediator, Great High Priest, and the Lamb of Hod who took upon Himself that curse we were under - the "wages of sin".

Christ became a curse for us, died for us as the "Last Adam", experienced the penalty, the "wages", of sin for us. He became sin for us. It pleased God to crush Him (Peter says the Jews gave him over to suffer and die at the hands of wicked men BUT this was in accordance with the predetermined will or plan of God). He bore our sins on that cross and by His stripes we are healed.

This was an actual event with an actual result (not some high in the sky possibility or potential).

So we agree on a lot here. We agree on enough to discuss our disagreements as fellow laborers and heirs in the Kingdom.

That said, I do not believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct. I am not sure how we go from Christ dying for us to Christ dying instead of us. At one time I affirmed Penal Substitution Theory, but I think I just assumed that change because of my own presuppositions (my worldview....I grew up in a small Baptist church..and just replaced "for" with "instead of" without question).

I just do not see Penal Substitution Theory as a "natural reading" of those passages. I also have some concerns with the elect still experiencing some of the penalty of sin (physical death and the corruption of the flesh). I am not sure how Penal Substitution Theory addresses this penalty and to ignore it seems to spiritualize the passage more than is warranted.

Those are my thoughts anyway. Not advocating my understanding, just expressing it.