Over several threads I have commented that I do not hold the Penal Substitution Theory. What I mean by this is that I do not affirm the post-medieval Penal Substitution Theory that was articulated primarily during the 16th and 17th centuries and is held in many Western churches to include evangelical Baptist churches.
While I reject Penal Substitution Theory, I affirm biblical penal substitution. This is an important distinction because it avoids the strawman arguments about “cosmic child abuse”, “bloodless atonement”, etc.
Paul tells us that God condemned sin in the flesh of the Messiah. This is penal substitution (biblical penal substitution) because God is condemning (penal) sin in the flesh of the Messiah (substitution) so that in Him there is no condemnation (we will not be condemned).
Paul tells us that the Law came that sin might abound. God gave the Law so that sin would do its worst in the people of the Law (where there is the Law there is transgression, the Law magnifies sin) and ultimately be nailed to a tree, handed to the Messiah, and dealt with once and for all in the flesh of the Messiah. This is penal substitution.
While I reject Penal Substitution Theory, I affirm biblical penal substitution. This is an important distinction because it avoids the strawman arguments about “cosmic child abuse”, “bloodless atonement”, etc.
Paul tells us that God condemned sin in the flesh of the Messiah. This is penal substitution (biblical penal substitution) because God is condemning (penal) sin in the flesh of the Messiah (substitution) so that in Him there is no condemnation (we will not be condemned).
Paul tells us that the Law came that sin might abound. God gave the Law so that sin would do its worst in the people of the Law (where there is the Law there is transgression, the Law magnifies sin) and ultimately be nailed to a tree, handed to the Messiah, and dealt with once and for all in the flesh of the Messiah. This is penal substitution.