Featured In support of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

I must have missed it.

Where one or more of our experts explained if PSA says Jesus propitiated God or Jesus provided the means of propitiation?

 

I don't think that quote is penal substitution. But was this from Gregory also? You put it up on the other thread. I'm sorry if I'm getting these quotes mixed up.

Now that to me looks a lot closer.

 

I mean, why does this matter all that much? He may be wrong but I look at B.B. Warfield's take on it:
"This is as much as to say as that not only is the doctrine of the sacrificial death of Christ embodied in Christianity as an essential element of the system, but in a very real sense it constitutes Christianity. This is what differentiates Christianity from other religions."

 

There are no alternatives. He carried my sins in His own body on the tree. I am crucified with Him, and having therefore died, the penalty of death for sin is paid in full.

 

Not any more. N.T. Wright, an able Apologist, has been presenting a new meaning for "Justification by Faith" in the past 15 years. And it has gained traction among evangelicals. John Piper wrote a book called "The Future of Justification" and showed how erroneous Wright was. The similarity here is, when I read the book, I got in over my head. I felt like I was lost. But I stuck with it, re-read several chapters, and finally felt like I got it.

Don't give up.

 

Sinclair Ferguson is one of the most clear, biblically well versed theologians of our day.

Here he is doing a message on the Father of Puritans. I listened and it is fantastic.

The Father of Puritanism

 

All those are attempts at different names, but they are all still the same thing.

 

You yourself have quoted a sentence out of context, and, worse yet, have not given even the book, much less chapter and verse to show where you took it from. It is unfair and dishonest of you to criticize either me or anyone else for what you habitually do yourself.
The idea of 'ransom' is perfectly biblical and does not contradict Penal Substitution. The idea that the ransom was paid to Satan, if that is what he meant - I can't really tell without seeing the context - is obviously wrong. But the quotation I gave showed that Gregory did indeed have a belief in penal substitution. Have another look at it; it's there. My own studies of ECFs, limited though they are, have taught me that they often contradict themselves. It is you that keeps on wanting to talk about the ECFs when it is clear that many of them held the most basic errors.

 

A few more commendations for the book;

8. The doctrine of penal substitution is often maligned and misunderstood today. Pierced for our Transgressionsis the perfect antidote. The authors defend the doctrine with sparkling clarity and winsome logic. I thank God for this work in which penal substitution is biblically grounded, theologically articulated and historically vindicated. No one could object that the authors fail to consider alternative views. Every objection to penal substitution is considered and refuted. In this book, we are summoned again to the heart of the Gospel.
Thomas Schreiner

9. A person's attitude to the cross tells you much about his theology as a whole, as it is on Calvary that we see the divine response to the human predicament. Thus the perennial attempts throughout church history to relativize and even to deny the propitiatory and substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice should not simply be understood as peripheral discussions; they indicate a constant tendency to revise the very essence of the Christian faith to conform to wider cultural mores and shibboleths. It is thus a great pleasure to recommend a book such as this, which seeks to defend a biblical, orthodox understanding of the atonement and to reinforce the non-negotiable centrality of God's wrath against sin and his merciful grace towards humanity. Careful readers will find much here taht will enable them to articulate with clarity and conviction this important doctrine.
Carl Trueman

10. Atonement is the central doctrine of the Christian faith, and penal substitution is the heart of the doctrine. It is wonderful to have a whole book on penal substitution.
Roger Nicole (died 2010)

 

Thanks for that. I will be watching that. I also like Ferguson and really enjoyed his series on the Marrow Men.

 

Are we saying the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is new because the term changed from propitiation, Particular Redemption, Limited Atonement, etc.?

Isaiah was a long time before Clemens Romanus and it sure seems like they taught what was defined in the O.P. first few posts.

And those scriptures, like Matthew 1:21, are not in the Bible, or the name?

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Of course, if there is bias ag(sorry caps)AINST THOSE OLDER TERMS, THEN IT IS GOING TO BE HARD TO EXCEPT THE SAME THING UNDER A NEW NAME.

The Cause of God and Truth by John Gill, D.D.
Part IV
Section 1—Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69. Clement, as he believed there was a certain number of elect persons, which has been proved in the preceding chapter, so he plainly intimates, that these are the persons for whom Christ shed his blood; for having observed, that all the elect of God are made perfect in love, he adds, "Without love nothing is well-pleasing to God; in love the Lord assumed us to himself; because of the love which Christ our Lord hath towards us, to aima autou adwken uper hmwn , he hath given his blood for us, his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls." The sense of which is manifestly this, that the persons for whose sake Christ assumed human nature, and shed his precious blood, are the elect of God, and such who have a special and peculiar share in the love of Christ.

 

Quotation, please.

 

Yep! That sounds like P.S. to me. It may not fit your theory you keep talking about but it suits me fine.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where the words come from. I told you where my quotation came from; it is common courtesy for you to do the same. When you do so, I will comment on them.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.

 

Thanks for posting this. I haven't listened very far yet but it's fascinating. Sinclair Ferguson is indeed a fine Bible teacher and historian.
The only book I have by William Perkins is The Art of Prophesying which is in the Banner of Truth Puritan Paperback series. Apparently it's one of their best sellers because charismatics keep buying it thinking it's about becoming an OT-style prophet. In fact, it's a book on preaching, and a very good one. It's great that so many more of his works are being published.