Can God forgive sins, and why did Jesus die?

[DaveXR650]

It seems like verses 21 talk about the common and true aspect of the atonement that Christ is our example of how we should live, specifically when dealing with suffering. Verse 22 talks talks about the fact that he himself had committed no sin which qualifies him as a perfect sacrifice, and in addition it continues the theme of how he functioned as an example to us. Verse 24 flat our says he bore our sins in his body on the cross which is penal substitution. And it says we can die to sin, which we symbolize in baptism when we say buried in believers baptism, raised to walk in newness of life. (I might be accused of eisegesis by saying that the only reason we can say that is because he bore our sins in his body on the tree, but the words "he bore our sins in his body on the tree are direct quotes.) Anyone who keeps saying that doesn't also mean he bore our sins in his body instead of us having to bear our own sins in my opinion is just being deliberately obstinate. The whole passage also ties in our salvation to the passage familiar to everyone in Isaiah.

One problem I see on here is that if one thing is brought up that is now assumed to be "the thing". For instance, the idea of the atonement as being Christ providing an example and a motivation is clearly true, and also clearly taught by those who believe in penal substitution. The idea of the necessity of us having a "union" with Christ is also a true teaching as being necessary for our salvation. The idea of us being "ransomed" by Christ is also true, and also taught, even in the larger catechism by Owen for example. The idea that Christ achieved a victory over the powers of darkness, sin and Satan in the atonement is also clearly taught by those who believe in penal substitutionary atonement.

If you like to exegete, how about Hebrews 8,9, and 10 which I agree, the best way to do this is not really to exegete at all, just read all three chapters at once, several times. Then ask yourself, can I really get away with saying that this is all about solidarity, or providing an example, or do I have to deal with the concept that I am helpless and totally dependent on Christ acting on my behalf by taking care of my sin with the application, somehow of his own blood. Is Christ doing something for me that I am not even allowed to be in on or is this a joint effort of solidarity. And if I refuse that, am I going to fall under the warning in chapter 10: 29-31?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm afraid you're right. This is exactly what I have been worrying about with Jon's views on this site for quite a while. The fact is there are plenty of verses in scripture supporting the concept of Jesus dying for our sins based upon looking at the Old Testament sacrificial system, and then the verses in the New Testament that relate and refer to them and expand on them. The fact that some won't accept them is what it is but that does not make them untrue.

You need to know that I myself have been told in the past on here of various theologians who are against penal substitution only to find out that that is not the case when you read them. Jon even tried to act like he was with Spurgeon on this even though Spurgeon wrote extensively on the fact that some in his day were subverting the faith by doing the very same thing with the atonement.

Also you will notice that there is no organized group of churches ever put forward that holds to this stuff they are saying and I think it is because they do not want everyone to examine them and see where they are on other areas of doctrine. So what you are experiencing is the sad state of affairs where on a Baptist board one of the moderators is spouting what may be at best a misunderstood reading of certain scriptures and at worse may be coming under a bad influence. I don't know.

Be advised that as a layman you need commentaries, the opinions of good theologians, and yes, even YouTube videos. There are good ones and some to avoid and you will just have to find out on your own who is what. But run from anyone who acts like they are above the need for such resources and relies on their own private interpretations of scripture, and even worse, thinks they have had special revelation or insight.

It's not one person perse, the world will be full of them.

I just manage to get frustrated when people lie and and change their point of view on something as often as the wind changes direction.

There's just a level where I'm not sure if everyone is doing the same thing and I just can't notice every potential miswording or mischaracterization, it's difficult not to trust anyone and have no human anchor to help make sure I'm even understanding.

 

[JonC]

I'm afraid you're right. This is exactly what I have been worrying about with Jon's views on this site for quite a while. The fact is there are plenty of verses in scripture supporting the concept of Jesus dying for our sins based upon looking at the Old Testament sacrificial system, and then the verses in the New Testament that relate and refer to them and expand on them. The fact that some won't accept them is what it is but that does not make them untrue.

You need to know that I myself have been told in the past on here of various theologians who are against penal substitution only to find out that that is not the case when you read them. Jon even tried to act like he was with Spurgeon on this even though Spurgeon wrote extensively on the fact that some in his day were subverting the faith by doing the very same thing with the atonement.

Also you will notice that there is no organized group of churches ever put forward that holds to this stuff they are saying and I think it is because they do not want everyone to examine them and see where they are on other areas of doctrine. So what you are experiencing is the sad state of affairs where on a Baptist board one of the moderators is spouting what may be at best a misunderstood reading of certain scriptures and at worse may be coming under a bad influence. I don't know.

Be advised that as a layman you need commentaries, the opinions of good theologians, and yes, even YouTube videos. There are good ones and some to avoid and you will just have to find out on your own who is what. But run from anyone who acts like they are above the need for such resources and relies on their own private interpretations of scripture, and even worse, thinks they have had special revelation or insight.

What you have to realize is that this is a Baptist board. It is not s Refirmed Baptist board.

Too many peoole look to "good commentaries" (commentaries that they agree with) and "good theologians" (theologians they agree with) rather than God's Word. They look for churches that agree with their opinions. They need an echo chamber because they cannot support their beliefs via God's Word.

With all you have posted about me, what you have not done is provide even one passage that states your faith. I have provided many passages that state mine.


Our conversations have been very similar to conversations I have had with Jehovah Witness members. I provide passages but they provide commentaries from scholars they believe. And these are well educated Jehovah Witness theologians. They are logical. BUT, like you, their faith is not grounded in the Word of God.

How would you reason with them? You'd pit your favorite theologians and commentaries against their favorite theogians and commentaries.

What you could never do is provide passages from God's Word stating what you believe. I understand why you seek the approval of men, why you believe as you do, why you look to commentaries to fill what you can't with God's Word. I was once there as well. Unlike you, I did not have people telling me to seek out Scripture rather than a theological camp. But I get where you are. And I find it sad.



You are mistaking, obviously, about churches and theologians who support my view.....not that it matters
There are plenty of books written by biblical scholars specifically denouncing Penal Substitution Theory. There are three traditional Mennonite churches in my area fairly vocal about Penal Substitution Theory being wrong (it became a current debate because of SBC churches in my area debating the topic). There are SBC churches (a minority) who challenged the Theory. There are a few Baptist churches in my area that combat Penal Substitution Theory by pointing to Scripture (this was a debate in the SBC a few years ago). I do not recommend using the internet to form a faith, but it is helpful in seeing what is out there and only a few clicks of the mouse would generate books from theologians denying Penal Substitution Theory.


You read into Scripture. You add words. You said "bearing" something has to mean removing that "something" from another. My son bears my name. You would say my son bears my name instead of me. But you would be reading into that sentence. Bearing something does not, by definition, mean transferring that something. It points to the person bearing the something.

 

[JonC]

It's not one person perse, the world will be full of them.

I just manage to get frustrated when people lie and and change their point of view on something as often as the wind changes direction.

There's just a level where I'm not sure if everyone is doing the same thing and I just can't notice every potential miswording or mischaracterization, it's difficult not to trust anyone and have no human anchor to help make sure I'm even understanding.

Trust God's Word. Never start with commentaries.

A good reference is Grasping God's Word. It will help you learn to read the Bible. One of the main points any teacher will give you is NEVER start with commentary. You can easily just be sucked into whatever belief. Start and stick with Scripture, use commentaries to make sure you did not come up with a new belief.


When you took to men you never know where you will end up. There are very educated and scholarly and well meaning Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Reformed theologians, Catholics, etc.

Read and believe the Bible. If it isn't in Scrioture there is a problem.

 

[Hazelelponi]

. It is not s Refirmed Baptist Board

Technically I'm not reformed. I'm Particular Baptist by baptism and church membership. (I admit that I'm more reformed than not though)

You all new kind of Baptists might have decided the roots of the faith of your confession is a horrible faith but it's not. It's from God, truly. You should check it out sometime.

You don't have to welcome Particular Baptists to your board that's fine but I'll leave you with the thoughts from a post I made talking to someone else this morning about something slightly different:

As a secondary note, since I'm more awake... Lol. I thought I would add some explanation.

My trust in God's people for a point of anchor is Biblical I think.

Every word of Scripture is prophecy, breathed out by God's Holy Spirit. We must handle this Word of God rightly, it's of the utmost importance, it's not a minor thing.

The Church (big C = God's true children throughout time) is to provide that point of anchor to prevent personal interpretation of Scripture (which is every confirmed word God breathed out in our direction). We are forth-tellers of prophecy, not foretellers but this is still all prophecy to my mind, even if old and not new.

I suppose for me it's about the importance of making certain I'm not off the reservation into mad craziness like false prophets are. It's something we must first guard against in ourselves.

In reading and learning from one another in the Spirit and submitting to the authority of the Church in interpretation, since no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation, we are submitting to God's authority over us.

I ran into someone recently who said he had an NDE and was off on a heretical mission to stop people from accepting the words of the New Testament.

We just want to avoid making such heretical errors which are made when we decide we might know better than God and His people throughout time, in order to ensure all our core doctrines are correct before God. God says we can differ in what's minor, but not what's major.

I'm not understanding perhaps how much full preterism breaks the story that's necessary to be seen but I admit being partial preterist for a decent amount of time before deciding Amil appeared most in line with Scripture.

But I do think we have to submit our interpretations first to the Church, not to ourselves.

We might find we are in the wrong church, one who themselves don't know God and to them we would be unable to submit - like when the Baptists said no, this is what the Bible states and so this only we will teach, no matter the cost - but when that occurred it was a revelation to a large portion of God's people who were confessing, in other words, though they differed with the predominant or prevailing opinions of the day, it wasn't just one or even a handful seeing God saying the same thing.

Therefore, it wasn't private interpretation thereby initiating the impetus of the faithful to change the institution or remove themselves from it as a b

Link to Post

When you hate your own faith there's an issue, it just might not be with those who believe in it.

But no issues. No Baptists allowed on the Baptist Board. Well understood. Thanks for clarifying the issues.

And since I've been accused of not knowing Scripture - I do speak it to those I think have ears to hear it in the first place. Link to another post I wrote here.

But thanks for informing me that staff here in general don't like people of faith. Most especially those who can tell a lie when they see one, like when you claimed Spurgeon was unsure of PSA
and believed he was teaching lies, yet, continued teaching those "lies" anyway.

Just the fact you can give false witness without blinking an eye is telling to me.

 

[Paleouss]

Problem is

Greeting on this glorious Tuesday, JonC. Wow...I left for a day and there are three more pages of conversation. I will admit, I haven't read all the posts.

My understanding at the moment is that you believe in a "representative substitution" (I'm not clear on all those details) and Dave is representing "Penal Substitution". From what little I have read, it seems that your complaint revolves around the concept of "wrath" as it pertains to what exactly Christ took on in our behalf. That is, the wrath of God that each individual deserved due to their own sin.

I would like to parse out the process of judgement for clarity, if you would allow.

Judgement of God
A) The Deliberation phase of the Law = Considers the appropriate Laws and the relevant evidence for all mankind (1Pet 4:17).
1) Due to the Cosmic Accomplishment of Christ, two laws are
applicable for deliberation (faith & works).

B) The Verdict phase of the Law = either being justified or condemned.

C) The Sentencing Phase of the Law =
(1) Punishment, penalties, wrath (Rom 4:15, John 3:36, 1Thes 1:10)
(2) freedom, “everlasting life” (John 3:36).

Regarding the topic I think you are debating, I'm going to classify yours as "Representative Substitution" (or RepSub) and the opposing as "Penal Substitution" (or PenSub).

It seems to me that what you want to assert has something to do with (A). That is, the work of Christ did something to affect the Deliberation Phase in the RepSub view (it actualized the subsection of the law called faith). Conversely, the PenSub focuses on (C). That is, the work of Christ took on the Sentencing Phase. In particular, #1 or the punishment, penalties, wrath.

It seems to me that to affect (A), Christ must take on the "power of sin". Hence my presentation in other threads regarding this topic. Further, however, for the power of sin to be taken on by Christ, it must be corralled, if you will. The net of the Moral Law must be casted so as to "gather" sin through the law (like a net gathers and confines fish).

I think this understanding is important. That is, that there is a reason God gave the Moral Law before the Incarnation, death and resurrection. And I think this 'must be given before' has something to do with the consistency of God's character.

Is punishing sins the only way for God to justify the guilty?

In another post you had written the above. Focusing, I presume, on the concept of PenSub and the concept of Christ taking on the "wrath" of God. I presume you mean, "Is just-punishment the only way for God to justify the guilty?" That is, if there must be just punishment for the guilty then what Christ took on for His sheep was that punishment.

I have a question that flushes out what I think is an important key...

(*) In any sense, does Christ's life, death and resurrection having anything to do with satisfying the law? If so, in what sense?


Peace to you brother.

 

[JonC]

Technically I'm not reformed. I'm Particular Baptist by baptism and church membership. (I admit that I'm more reformed than not though)

You all new kind of Baptists might have decided the roots of the faith of your confession is a horrible faith but it's not. It's from God, truly. You should check it out sometime.

You don't have to welcome Particular Baptists to your board . . .

You are making all mistake in classification. Random Theory Baptists predate Reformed Baotists (Paticular Baptists) and even General Baptists. To us, you are the "new kind of Baptist".

The "roots of my confession" is Scripture. But I can - and have - also pointed to theologians from the 3rd and 4th century.

I can also point to Augustine, although I don't like his illustration of Christ as "bait".
You cannot.

You are also wring in welcoming groups to the board. You (and Reformation Baptists) are the only ones speaking of not welcoming traditional baptists to the board. I have never suggested Baotists (whether Calvinistic or Arminian, or non-Calvinists, or Free Will Baotists, or Primitive Baptists, etc) be removed from the board. But you and @DaveXR650 have indicated that Baptists who disagree with you should not be allowed on this forum.

That said, all the mud you create in the water here does not hide the fact that your faith is extra-biblical (not in God's Word) and I strive for a biblical faith ("what is written").



When you ask me to give a passage stating what I believe, I can.

When I ask you, you can't and ask for a verse saying your philosophy is untrue.

 

[Tenchi]

My hope is that some other person, member or passerby, will think about it, go to Scripture, and realize that Penal Substitution Theory is based on a very flawed judicial philosophy and ultimately be able to take Scripture for what is written. It has happened a couple of times (over about 10 years) and those two were worth the effort to me.

I'd recommend reading Dr. William Lane Craig's book "The Atonement" in which he demonstrates a synthesis of the various prominent views of the Atonement under the PSA view. Instead of putting the various views in conflict with one another, he shows how, together, they produce the fullest, most robust understanding of the Atonement, the PSA serving as a sort of "hub" connecting all the views. I think he's spot-on, offering some great insights to the detractors of the PSA view.

 

[JonC]

Greeting on this glorious Tuesday, JonC. Wow...I left for a day and there are three more pages of conversation. I will admit, I haven't read all the posts.

My understanding at the moment is that you believe in a "representative substitution" (I'm not clear on all those details) and Dave is representing "Penal Substitution". From what little I have read, it seems that your complaint revolves around the concept of "wrath" as it pertains to what exactly Christ took on in our behalf. That is, the wrath of God that each individual deserved due to their own sin.

I would like to parse out the process of judgement for clarity, if you would allow.

Judgement of God
A) The Deliberation phase of the Law = Considers the appropriate Laws and the relevant evidence for all mankind (1Pet 4:17).
1) Due to the Cosmic Accomplishment of Christ, two laws are
applicable for deliberation (faith & works).

B) The Verdict phase of the Law = either being justified or condemned.

C) The Sentencing Phase of the Law =
(1) Punishment, penalties, wrath (Rom 4:15, John 3:36, 1Thes 1:10)
(2) freedom, “everlasting life” (John 3:36).

Regarding the topic I think you are debating, I'm going to classify yours as "Representative Substitution" (or RepSub) and the opposing as "Penal Substitution" (or PenSub).

It seems to me that what you want to assert has something to do with (A). That is, the work of Christ did something to affect the Deliberation Phase in the RepSub view (it actualized the subsection of the law called faith). Conversely, the PenSub focuses on (C). That is, the work of Christ took on the Sentencing Phase. In particular, #1 or the punishment, penalties, wrath.

It seems to me that to affect (A), Christ must take on the "power of sin". Hence my presentation in other threads regarding this topic. Further, however, for the power of sin to be taken on by Christ, it must be corralled, if you will. The net of the Moral Law must be casted so as to "gather" sin through the law (like a net gathers and confines fish).

I think this understanding is important. That is, that there is a reason God gave the Moral Law before the Incarnation, death and resurrection. And I think this 'must be given before' has something to do with the consistency of God's character.


In another post you had written the above. Focusing, I presume, on the concept of PenSub and the concept of Christ taking on the "wrath" of God. I presume you mean, "Is just-punishment the only way for God to justify the guilty?" That is, if there must be just punishment for the guilty then what Christ took on for His sheep was that punishment.

I have a question that flushes out what I think is an important key...

(*) In any sense, does Christ's life, death and resurrection having anything to do with satisfying the law? If so, in what sense?


Peace to you brother.

Kinda....

My complaint is that @DaveXR650 cannot provide any passages that state what he believes.

I understand the reasoning of Penal Substitution Theory but believe it is flawed. For one, it bases salvation on divine justice. Another is the judicial philosophy used is flawed.

One problem is it denies that God can forgive sins.

Think about it. How are sins forgiven? They are punished...the lost experience God's wrath but the saved escape that by Christ experiencing that punishment.

That is not forgiving sins.


But my greatest complaint is simply that it is not in God's Word.


When we view God's Word as what a group of theologians think the Bible teaches then we put ourselves in the place of God, choosing which group of men to believe.

Instead I believe God revealed a that needs to be known of the Atonement in Scripture.


It would be very simple to change my mind. Just show me a passage stating that God punished Jesus instead of us or that Jesus bore our sins instead of us, or that Jesus suffered God's wrath, etc.

That is all @DaveXR650 needed to do. Not tell me Owen taught this, or such and such man taught that. Not what he believes is taught. But Scripture itself.

And he cant.

 

[DaveXR650]

What you have to realize is that this is a Baptist board. It is not s Refirmed Baptist board.

Don't try that with me. I am probably more tolerant of other views than most on here. I believe the atonement was universal, yet believe that any level of Calvinism is acceptable and the only thing I insist on is a true and free offer of salvation. I believe that there are many saved Roman Catholics. Most of the serious flak I get on here is from hyper-Calvinists and Primitive Baptists. I even get along with @Silverhair.

Too many peoole look to "good commentaries" (commentaries that they agree with) and "good theologians" (theologians they agree with) rather than God's Word. They look for churches that agree with their opinions. They need an echo chamber because they cannot support their beliefs via God's Word.

That's another bogus charge. I have found that those who like to read commentaries are the same ones who read a lot of scripture, no exceptions. It's a complete myth that there are these lone, spiritual individuals who because of their private Bible study have come up with secrets only they understand. With information so easily available nowadays if you can't find someone supporting what you believe that might be a clue that maybe you need to reexamine some things.

With all you have posted about me, what you have not done is provide even one passage that states your faith. I have provided many passages that state mine.

Why do you keep doing that. In my last post I suggested that someone read Hebrews 8.9 and 10 quickly, without commentary several times. There you have exactly the work I think Christ does for us as our High Priest. Why don't you get in there and tear that passage apart since you seem to like doing that.

Our conversations have been very similar to conversations I have had with Jehovah Witness members. I provide passages but they provide commentaries from scholars they believe. And these are well educated Jehovah Witness theologians. They are logical. BUT, like you, their faith is not grounded in the Word of God.

I'm glad you finally admitted what you really think. I sound like a JW to you so don't get offended when I point our what you are doing is Socinian, or at least modern thought that can not accept the idea of blood being shed for our salvation.

What you could never do is provide passages from God's Word stating what you believe.

Repeating that doesn't make it true. Decide how you want it. We are all quoting the same passages. We just seem to have a different dictionary for finding out the meanings. Like that silly thing about giving your son the same name as you is equivalent to Jesus "bearing" our sin. Not only is that a wrong understanding of the use of the word, but it was explained to you once and you just keep repeating it.

This just goes in circles and I'm afraid that this particular subject is potentially damaging to people in a way that other subjects are not. And this should be an answer to what you said before. I am aware that many churches nowadays deny penal substitution. Many also believe in modern Marxist concepts of social justice and gay rights too. Sometimes when you try to look up Baptistboard you get on a Baptist news site that is way more politically liberal than BBC or NPR. And that's my point. What you do not do is show the folks on here any examples of churches that actually deny penal substitution yet are sound in all those other areas. I am claiming they don't exist so show me where I'm wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'd recommend reading Dr. William Lane Craig's book "The Atonement" in which he demonstrates a synthesis of the various prominent views of the Atonement under the PSA view. Instead of putting the various views in conflict with one another, he shows how, together, they produce the fullest, most robust understanding of the Atonement, the PSA serving as a sort of "hub" connecting all the views. I think he's spot-on, offering some great insights to the detractors of the PSA view.

This is true. But remember that you can go back to the works of John Owen and find the same integration of all the various "theories" (I hate that word) of the atonement explained and integrated with the idea of penal substitution. I can give you references for many of them if you want to save time but I wanted you to know that. Craigs video on that is fine though if your time is limited.

 

[DaveXR650]

It would be very simple to change my mind. Just show me a passage stating that God punished Jesus instead of us or that Jesus bore our sins instead of us, or that Jesus suffered God's wrath, etc.

That is all @DaveXR650 needed to do. Not tell me Owen taught this, or such and such man taught that. Not what he believes is taught. But Scripture itself.

And he cant.

No matter how many times you try to tell Jon something he just won't listen. He won't explain what Hebrews 8,9 and 10 is talking about if it's not about the priestly work of Christ clearly based on substitutionary atonement. If I go to Romans 3:21-26 and explain that although God likes to forgive us outright his nature requires that he also be just. The exact words are there explaining that but he ignores them. And then he repeats his charge that apparently he and he alone reads and understands scripture.

Throughout these threads he does this, and seldom actually addresses what I do say, except to say the scripture doesn't really mean that. When he does put up references that are supposed to support his view (which is undecipherable for the most part anyway) it turns out if you look up the supporting references they ain't what he said. Examples would be T.F. Torrance, from our previous round in this, and C.S. Lewis, who if you go to his own book will find that he doesn't claim to know the answers, was evolving in his understanding, and used to think penal substitution was silly but was changing his mind. Most outrageous of all, he even tries to link himself as a liking and admiring Spurgeon, who was very much a supporter of this ridiculous (according to @JonC ) and unbiblical "theory".

If you ever have read one of those horrible commentaries or books, especially by Puritan era theologians, you find so much scripture included that it's unavoidable. To keep repeating the same charge becomes absurd at some point. To allow it to keep happening on a board says something, but I'm not sure what. I do think it discredits the whole board at some point.

 

[Paleouss]

One problem is it denies that God can forgive sins.

Thank you JonC for your reply.

So when you say "it denies that God can forgive sins"... are you referring to a topic like 'God's good pleasure'? That is, is the complaint that the PenSub implies God is 'bound' by justice. In more other words, couldn't God just forgive sins before the Law was given if He so chose?

Think about it. How are sins forgiven? They are punished...the lost experience God's wrath but the saved escape that by Christ experiencing that punishment.

That is not forgiving sins.

So let's assume my "Conquering the Power of Sin" assertion in the other thread in which I asserted that one purpose that Christ died was for all by His conquering of the power of sin is correct. So the power of sin and its grip, dominion and rule has been conquered and all sinners everywhere have been brought back to some kind of state of equilibrium in which culpability is all on the sinner to have faith and believe or not. No more grip of original sin. Its all on works or faith at judgment.

Christ says, He has come “to be sin for us” (2Cor 5:21) by bearing “our sins in His own body on the tree” (1Pet 2:24, Gal 6:2). If we choose faith, in what sense did Christ bear our sins in His body? Further, in what way is He “wounded for our transgressions” (Isa 53:5) and “bruised for our iniquities” (Isa 53:5)... and in what way does He take on “the chastisement for our peace” (Isa 53:5). The term "chastisement" seems punitive.

As in my 'Conquering the Power of Sin' assertion. I agree that Christ did something globally for all. But the verses I presented above appear to imply that Christ also did something individually (for some).

t would be very simple to change my mind. Just show me a passage stating that God punished Jesus instead of us or that Jesus bore our sins instead of us, or that Jesus suffered God's wrath, etc.

The verses I gave above do not explicitly state your requested phrases. However, I am interested in your view on them. Particularly "our sins in His own body on the tree" (1Pet 2:24, Gal 6:2).

Peace to you my brother

 

[atpollard]

@JonC

Since you have requested a defense of PSA from scripture, I thought that I would share this well thought out response from John Bauer.
It was offered on another forum, but, unfortunately, it was offered after 10 pages of my being told I was denying Christ by questioning PSA ... so I was well past "done" by the time he jumped into the "donneybrook".

PART 1: (by John Bauer)

atpollard said:

Here is the challenge that was presented to me and I was confident that I could succeed in passing:

• 1. Show me where the Bible teaches that Christ took the Father's wrath upon [himself].

Penal substitutionary atonement is a theological doctrine that explains the meaning and purpose of the cross of Christ, whereby

1. he bore the punishment for sin (penal)
2. in the place of us believers (substitutionary),
3. satisfying divine justice and cleansing us of the guilt and stain of sin, thereby reconciling us and God (atonement).

If we believe these three elements are true, then we believe the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.
Where do we see this doctrine being affirmed in scripture? One of the more fundamental, obvious, and familiar texts is in Isaiah:

Isaiah 53:5-6, 10-11 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, [he was] crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. All of us had wandered off like sheep; each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the LORD caused the sin of all of us to attack him. … The LORD desired to crush him and cause him to suffer, but once restitution is made he will see descendants and enjoy long life and the LORD's purpose will be accomplished through him. Having suffered, he will reflect on his work and be satisfied when he understands what has been accomplished. "My servant will acquit many, for he carried their sins."

Observe that the Servant was not only "crushed because of our sins" which he "carried" or bore (v. 5), but it was God who was "pleased" or "desired to crush him and cause him to suffer" (v. 10). Note the penal substitutionary language being used in this passage. The Servant is afflicted not for his own sins but for ours, and God himself is the one who crushed him (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:28; John 10:18). In the Reformed tradition, all penal substitutionary aspects of the atoning sacrifice—Christ absorbing the wrath, judgment, and penalty due for sin—are realized by God's own sovereign will. The crushing of the Servant is not an incidental consequence of human wickedness but the divinely chosen means of accomplishing redemption.

And this righteous penalty for sin is substitutionary: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—because it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’" (Gal 3:13; cf. 2 Cor 5:21). To be cursed in a biblical context is to be under the judicial wrath of God. This language of curse-bearing directly corresponds to the cup metaphor, which we will visit in a moment. Both communicate judgment—not mere suffering or martyrdom but divine wrath poured out for sin. Christ bore the full brunt of the covenant curses in our place, not symbolically but judicially. God was pleased to crush him (to shatter or break into pieces), not out of malice but in the name of redemptive justice, which is necessarily substitutionary because Christ was without sin—until God made him to be sin for us. And the reason it pleased him to do so is because the suffering Servant's work satisfied divine justice and secured redemption for the elect. God was pleased with the outcome of this suffering, not with the suffering for its own sake. At the cross of Christ, divine love and wrath met not in conflict but in harmony.

According to the New English Translation on verse 6 (all emphases mine), which the NIV and ESV unfortunately translate as "has laid on him the iniquity of us all":

Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע means to intercede verbally (e.g., Jer 15:11; 36:25) or to intervene militarily (e.g., Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently, here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, which is to encounter, to meet, to touch. The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way, the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (e.g., Josh 2:16; Jdg 8:21; 15:12; etc.), as here where the causative Hiphil has a double object—God makes ‘sin’ attack ‘him.’ … In their sin, the group was like sheep who had wandered from God's path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the Servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack.

Just a side note on verse 10: I thought it was interesting that the idiomatic language used here—"he will see descendants and enjoy long life"—emphasizes the Servant's restoration to divine favor. Having numerous descendants and living a long life are standard signs of covenant blessing (cf. Job 42:13-16).

 

[atpollard]

PART 2: (by John Bauer)
Here are some more scriptures with either explicit or implicit penal substitutionary language:

Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Romans 5:8-9 God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God's wrath.

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree") …

Ephesians 5:2 … [Christ] gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God.

Ephesians 5:25 … Christ loved the church and gave himself for her …

Colossians 2:13-15 [God] forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement [propitiation] for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 9:28 … Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, …

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness. By his wounds you were healed.

1 Peter 3:18 Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit.

1 John 2:2 [Jesus Christ] himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.

Here, the Greek term ἱλασμός (hilasmos, atoning sacrifice) is not one-dimensional. Christ's atoning sacrifice not only satisfies God's wrath against sin (propitiation) but also removes the guilt and stain of sin (expiation). Christ Jesus "set us free from our sins at the cost of his own blood" (Rev 1:5). Moreover, propitiation is technically about turning aside God's wrath. But that raises the question: From where, and to where? And the answer is from us believers and to himself (and so God's wrath remains on those who reject the Son, John 3:36). Where do we find this idea that he turned God's wrath to himself?

Matthew 26:39-42 Going a little farther, he threw himself down with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if possible, let this cup pass from me! Yet not what I will, but what you will." … He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if this cup cannot be taken away unless I drink it, then your will must be done."

The cup does not represent mere suffering or impending death. In continuity with the Old Testament prophets and Christ’s own vocabulary, this is the cup of divine wrath, the wine of God's anger mixed undiluted, the judicial penalty for covenant-breaking sin. Christ prays for its removal not out of weakness or dread of suffering but because the one without sin is about to undergo the full fury of the covenant curses on behalf of his sinful people. This is not assumed, it is (a) established by Old Testament prophetic usage, (b) continued by Christ's own language of "cup" as shorthand for atoning suffering, and (c) fulfilled narratively in his cry of abandonment under God's judgment. Christ Jesus exhausted the cup of God's wrath so that there is no condemnation left for those in him.

Isaiah 51:17 Wake up! Wake up! Get up, O Jerusalem! You drank from the cup the LORD passed to you, which was full of his anger! You drained dry the goblet full of intoxicating wine.

Zechariah 12:2 "I am about to make Jerusalem a cup that brings dizziness to all the surrounding nations; indeed, Judah will also be included when Jerusalem is besieged." [The NET notes that this imagery, a cup that brings dizziness, "is that of drunkenness. The LORD will force the nations to drink of his judgment and, in doing so, they will become so intoxicated by his wrath that they will stumble and become irrational." Sounds like the 21st century, too.]

According to the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (1996), the cup represented divine judgment on sin, which the Father had given him to drink. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (1998) concurs that the cup is "used figuratively as a symbol of God's judgment against sin." It goes on to explain:


God is pictured punishing wicked, rebellious people by making them drunk (Isa 51:17, 22; Jer 25:15-16; Ezek 23:31-34; Mark 14:36). Drunkenness may seem a mild picture for divine wrath compared to the horrors of war, natural disaster, and disease that God [normally visits] on sinners. But, in a way, the cup of wrath is a particularly dark symbol of judgment. … God is seen personally handing sinners their destruction and forcing them to drink. In Jeremiah 25:27 God tells the nations, "Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more."

The image of the cup of wrath carries special horror because, unlike being overtaken by battle, earthquake, or plague, drinking is something a person does deliberately. Drunkenness implies a humiliating progression: people begin confident of their power to handle the wine, but it eventually masters them. In several passages that feature the cup of God's wrath, we see that sinners start out arrogant (see Ps 75:4-5; Jer 49:12-16; Rev 18:6-8) but lose any vestige of human dignity as they drink the cup God hands them "down to its very dregs" (Ps 75:8). They stagger and fall unconscious in the streets (Is 51:17-20); they are exposed and disgraced (Hab 2:16); they go mad (Jer 51:7); they are scorned and "walked over" by their enemies (Is 51:23). Yet clearly their own choices, not God's capricious anger, have precipitated their destruction.

When we remember the predominant use of cup imagery in the Old Testament, Jesus' repeated use of the word cup to signify his impending death takes on great significance. When he pleads, "Abba, Father … take this cup from me" (Mark 14:36), we realize that his anguish grows principally from the prospect of feeling the full weight of his Father's anger against sin fall on himself. His ordeal is especially poignant because he, alone among humankind, does not deserve God's wrath—yet he chooses to surrender to crucifixion, so that sinners can receive forgiveness. As the soldiers come to arrest him, humility and heroism mingle in his words: "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" (John 18:11).

Because Jesus drinks the cup of wrath, he can offer his followers the cup of the new covenant. "Drink from it, all of you," Jesus tells the disciples at the Last Supper. "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt 26:27-29). All who accept Jesus' sacrifice for themselves can appropriate the blessings of forgiveness, fellowship with God and other believers, and certainty of eternal life that this cup of the new covenant holds (1 Cor 11:25-26). But any who take Jesus' sacrifice lightly or reject it completely will find themselves drinking the cup of God's judgment (1 Cor 11:27-30; Rev 17:3-6; 18:6-8).


The cup Christ received was not a symbol of mere suffering or martyrdom, but the judicial outpouring of divine wrath reserved for covenant breakers. In willingly drinking it, he bore the full penalty of sin in the place of his people, satisfying the demands of God’s justice through penal substitution. This was not incidental but deliberate—a voluntary offering under divine appointment, whereby the wrath due to the elect was turned aside and exhausted in the suffering Servant. It was penal, it was substitutionary, and it was atoning: all for whom Christ drank the cup may instead drink the cup of blessing. But for those who reject him, the dreadful wine of wrath remains—undiluted, filled to the brim, unavoidable, and just.

 

[atpollard]

PART 3: (by John Bauer)
Regarding death:

Since Christ bore the death penalty due to sin for believers,

• we will never perish, which is a permanent, ontological, or eternal separation from God (the second death).
• physical death is no longer dreadful but a threshold; the elect "sleep" in Christ (1 Thess 4:13–14), awaiting resurrection to eternal life (whereas the reprobate "perish" apart from Christ, awaiting resurrection to eternal punishment).
• the sting of death—its curse and condemnation—has been removed. We no longer fear death.
• we die physically but not punitively; we die as those united to Christ, who conquered death.
• "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live even if he dies" (John 11:25).

Christ has defeated death, but he has not yet eliminated it. The elect still die because we live in the overlap between ages. The final conquest of death is eschatological. For believers, now, death has a non-penal, transformative, covenantally redemptive nature; it is a temporary interruption, not an eternal penalty, a threshold in their sanctification, an exodus from the present age into their glorification in the presence of Christ.

(Side note regarding ontological death: This is the final and comprehensive separation of the human person—body and soul—from the triune God. It issues from covenantal rebellion in Adam, manifesting in spiritual corruption and physical mortality that carries a sting, and it culminates in this complete and permanent separation from God. The victory of Christ's death and resurrection was the conquest of ontological death.)

 

[atpollard]

Personally, I really wish it were possible to DISCUSS this subject (as distinct from debating this or arguing over this) because I see LOTS of small details that I would really like to discuss in a friendly manner.

Here is an example:

On the CROSS, Jesus stated "My God, why have you forsaken me" ... which points any biblical literate listener (like the Jewish Audience) to Psalm 22.
Psalm 22, then goes on to describe in perfect detail EXACTLY what was happening right before the eyes of those watching Jesus be crucified.

So my question is: WHY does Psalm 22 open with a cry that God has forsaken him and end with a declaration that God NEVER abandoned him?

That seems something worth talking about ... christian to christian.

 

[JesusFan]

How on earth do you presuppose such a cavalier attitude on the Biblical teachings on the Atonement - a key scriptural doctrine for the faithful - to interpret his teachings as stating "I'm probably wrong and Calvin too" from Spurgeons direct teachings?

I would love to see the exact source to the words you're claiming he said and please provide the link.

Since there's virtually nothing we can't get online I'm sure it won't take long to find what your referring to.

The Charles Spurgeon I have heard was solidly grounded in his faith and sure of the doctrines he taught, even when the world was against him.

Representation of what these scholars teach is disingenuous without proof when it seems to contradict all they taught and stood for.

The Spurgeon Library | Sermon of the Week: No. 321, “Christ – Our Substitute”

www.spurgeon.org

The Spurgeon Library | Christ—Our Substitute

www.spurgeon.org

^^^ This Spurgeon, just in case there was not clarity.

Spurgeon was known as the "Prince of Preachers", as took over his church at age 17 as head Pastor, and was a big time soul winner, and a strong reformed Baptist

 

[JesusFan]

I think he did and at the same time it was the plan of God. I don't think that is a controversial idea among those who believe in penal substitution. The book of Hebrews I find tends to explain that Jesus himself is the one truly acting as our high priest and while not needing to bring a blood sacrifice for himself instead is acting for us. Let me just say that you have to understand that when you are discussing this with laymen, or even preachers even at the level of Spurgeon you will not have academic explanations of each and every point. For example sometimes it looks like Jesus comes to the mercy seat and sometimes he is the mercy seat. I don't claim to have answers for every exact point.

The Cross was predetermined and planned by the Father, and Jesus stated that His purpose when born was to die as a sin sacrifice to God, as bearing sins of His people in order to establish a new Covenant with father, not as a death to "worldly opression"

 

[JesusFan]

I think Peter's sermon agrees.

What I believe is that Jesus suffered unjust oppression, died under powers of evil, but that this was the predetermined plan of God.

Jesus humbled Himself to come under the oppression we justly suffer under (sin begats death, the wages of sin).

One reason this can't be God's punishment against us is that this punishment is reserved for the wicked "on that day". A lot happens to us, spiritually, before "that day". We die to sin and the flesh. We are made holy. We become like Christ. We are "refined as metal is refined in a fire", we are purified and made new creations.

This means one problem with penal substitution theory (proper) is it treats sinful acts as if they caused God loss or harm (man conquered God to an extent). Therefore God must repair the damages, make Himself whole by collecting a debt. God's justice demands the want be satisfied. This is based on humanistic judicial theory, one that was abandoned as flawed but lives on in Calvinism.

That is not what penal substitution theorists will say, not out loud anyway, but that is what the theory does.

Ask yourself, why does God have to punish sins rather than being able to dismiss sins? Many will say because His justice demands it. But if man can be recreated then this is a divine weakness (it has to do with need rather than necessity as if one can be recreated then they do not bear the guilt of what they once were).

Before saved by grace of God, we were ALL already under wrath and condemnation of God, but in his mercy he awaiting until either his own got saved, orlse judging the lost in full at their Judgement day