3 Reasons I changed my mind about Penal Substitution

[SavedByGrace]

Ninevah repented in a national sense but was not saved in the spiritual sense. God did not wipe them out. Women converts were considered circumcised (Jews) through their circumcised fathers or husbands.

much reformed theology is making you mad!

READ what the Bible actually says

So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey. 4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. 5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. 6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? 10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. - Jonah chapter 3

If this is NOT spiritual conversion, then I don't know what is? Jesus refers to this, and says, "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here." Matthew 12:41.

quit your theology and let the Holy Spirit teach you what they Bible ACTUALLY does say!

 

[1689Dave]

much reformed theology is making you mad!

READ what the Bible actually says

So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey. 4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. 5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. 6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? 10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. - Jonah chapter 3

If this is NOT spiritual conversion, then I don't know what is? Jesus refers to this, and says, "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here." Matthew 12:41.

quit your theology and let the Holy Spirit teach you what they Bible ACTUALLY does say!

Did God save all Israel whenever they repented? No, it meant he did not destroy them as a nation. Remember, works of the law cannot save. Works of the law could not save Nineveh either, only it kept them from national destruction. I'll look you up later.......

 

[Yeshua1]

much reformed theology is making you mad!

READ what the Bible actually says

So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey. 4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. 5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. 6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? 10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. - Jonah chapter 3

If this is NOT spiritual conversion, then I don't know what is? Jesus refers to this, and says, "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here." Matthew 12:41.

quit your theology and let the Holy Spirit teach you what they Bible ACTUALLY does say!

did the Lord Himself intervene to save them, or did they suddenly have a change of heart themselves?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Did God save all Israel whenever they repented? No, it meant he did not destroy them as a nation. Remember, works of the law cannot save. Works of the law could not save Nineveh either, only it kept them from national destruction. I'll look you up later.......

so you are saying that the Lord is playing games with these from Nineveh? God commands Jonah to preach repentance from their wicked ways. then they obey God's command and repent, and according to you, God simply ignored them? Man, you have very serious problems in opposing what God commanded and did, as does much of Reformed theology.

 

[SavedByGrace]

did the Lord Himself intervene to save them, or did they suddenly have a change of heart themselves?

have you read the account? God commanded Jonah to preach salvation to them, they say the error of their ways, and repented of their wickedness. God saw this and was pleased and saved them. Jonah, like the Reformed/Calvinist, strongly objected as there were not Jewish and therefore not "elect". Reformed theology is against what God says and does!

 

[Yeshua1]

have you read the account? God commanded Jonah to preach salvation to them, they say the error of their ways, and repented of their wickedness. God saw this and was pleased and saved them. Jonah, like the Reformed/Calvinist, strongly objected as there were not Jewish and therefore not "elect". Reformed theology is against what God says and does!

They proved their election by accepting what Jonah preached to them!

 

[SavedByGrace]

They proved their election by accepting what Jonah preached to them!

so, you are saying that these non Jews, who were not part of the elect Nation of Israel, the only Nation that was known as the People of God, became "elect"? WOW, that is truly wonderful news from a reformed guy! So, if the "non elect" could become "elect" in the OT, as were Rahab and Ruth, then this surely must be the case in the Church Age. Sounds like you are at last seeing things God's Way

 

[JonC]

God being Holy had to place his divine wrath on someone to pay for their breaking of his law!

I find the phrase "God had to" to be very problematic. I am sure God has ways beyond us or our comprehension.

Sometimes I think we do much better to simply accept Scripture without imposing necessity upon God.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I find the phrase "God had to" to be very problematic. I am sure God has ways beyond us or our comprehension.

Sometimes I think we do much better to simply accept Scripture without imposing necessity upon God.

God, "had to" deal with our sins so that sinners could get saved. what is "very problematic" about this? This is Bible fact.

 

[JonC]

It is the central theme of Pauline Justification!

There is really no such thing as "Pauline Justification". Paul justifies no man.

There is the act of Jesus redeeming mankind and then there are observations of this act.

What you are talking about (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) incorporates not merely Christ crucified (the act) and the testimony of this redemption (Scripture) but also Christians looking back with the advantage AND disadvantage of history (the advantage of a Canon of Scripture and the competing ideas of those who have gone before BUT the disadvantage of the human element and the subjectivity inherent with existing within history).

Christ, NOT the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, is at the heart of justification as taught and expounded upon by Paul.

 

[SavedByGrace]

It is the central theme of Pauline Justification!

it is what the Bible teaches from Genesis to Revelation. It is the ONLY way that any sinner can be "Justified" with the Holy God of the Bible. It is NOT a "theory", but Biblical fact. ALL other "options" are not found in the Word of God. Why would any born-again Christian object to Penal Substitution, is beyond me.

 

[JonC]

God, "had to" deal with our sins so that sinners could get saved. what is "very problematic" about this? This is Bible fact.

No, that is your opinion. Scripture allows the possibility that the righteousness of God could be come about apart from a legal or judicial system (that men may be subject to the penalty of sin, yet in a way the Jewish leaders would reject still justify the sinner).

The Pharisees could not accept the idea because it did not fit in their worldview. Dime today are the same. But Christ introduced a new worldview.

 

[SavedByGrace]

No, that is your opinion. Scripture allows the possibility that the righteousness of God could be come about apart from a legal or judicial system (that men may be subject to the penalty of sin, yet in a way the Jewish leaders would reject still justify the sinner).

The Pharisees could not accept the idea because it did not fit in their worldview. Dime today are the same. But Christ introduced a new worldview.

can you give your Biblical reasons for objecting to Penal Substitution, and then shown from the Bible, which "theory" is the correct one.

 

[JonC]

can you give your Biblical reasons for objecting to Penal Substitution, and then shown from the Bible, which "theory" is the correct one.

The Biblical reason is that the Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in the Bible.

I do not believe the Bible was concerned with any of the theories. I believe those who hold Penal Substitution Theory (or any of these theories) are guilty of a willful sin by not only holding Scripture as insufficient but also advocating this lack of faith to others.

But I am not being hard on those guys. I was one of them most of my life and understand the intention is good. The question is whether or not intentions can excuse such theories.

 

[Yeshua1]

so, you are saying that these non Jews, who were not part of the elect Nation of Israel, the only Nation that was known as the People of God, became "elect"? WOW, that is truly wonderful news from a reformed guy! So, if the "non elect" could become "elect" in the OT, as were Rahab and Ruth, then this surely must be the case in the Church Age. Sounds like you are at last seeing things God's Way

Saying that the saved and redeemed are the elect of God, as not all in national israel were saved, and some gentiles were!

 

[Yeshua1]

I find the phrase "God had to" to be very problematic. I am sure God has ways beyond us or our comprehension.

Sometimes I think we do much better to simply accept Scripture without imposing necessity upon God.

God had no other option to be able to remain Holy and Judge of sin and sinners and yet also be able to freely justify them!

 

[Yeshua1]

There is really no such thing as "Pauline Justification". Paul justifies no man.

There is the act of Jesus redeeming mankind and then there are observations of this act.

What you are talking about (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) incorporates not merely Christ crucified (the act) and the testimony of this redemption (Scripture) but also Christians looking back with the advantage AND disadvantage of history (the advantage of a Canon of Scripture and the competing ideas of those who have gone before BUT the disadvantage of the human element and the subjectivity inherent with existing within history).

Christ, NOT the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, is at the heart of justification as taught and expounded upon by Paul.

The act of God in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus is core of pauline Justification!

 

[Yeshua1]

it is what the Bible teaches from Genesis to Revelation. It is the ONLY way that any sinner can be "Justified" with the Holy God of the Bible. It is NOT a "theory", but Biblical fact. ALL other "options" are not found in the Word of God. Why would any born-again Christian object to Penal Substitution, is beyond me.

many do who hold to the NPP reject it!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that is your opinion. Scripture allows the possibility that the righteousness of God could be come about apart from a legal or judicial system (that men may be subject to the penalty of sin, yet in a way the Jewish leaders would reject still justify the sinner).

The Pharisees could not accept the idea because it did not fit in their worldview. Dime today are the same. But Christ introduced a new worldview.

God cannot just declare a sinner saved, as he still must have someone atone for that sin debt obligation!

 

[Yeshua1]

The Biblical reason is that the Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in the Bible.

I do not believe the Bible was concerned with any of the theories. I believe those who hold Penal Substitution Theory (or any of these theories) are guilty of a willful sin by not only holding Scripture as insufficient but also advocating this lack of faith to others.

But I am not being hard on those guys. I was one of them most of my life and understand the intention is good. The question is whether or not intentions can excuse such theories.

how are sins atoned for if Jesus Himself does not bear them for us?