In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[JonC]

For that to be the case would require the advocate of penal substitution to claim that the cross was not the method used. I have never heard of anyone claiming that and still claiming penal substitution. That's a bogus claim.

The cross is there because it's the way chosen by the Godhead as claimed in scripture. To say that God could have done something else has no meaning at all because not only would such speculation be bordering on blasphemous, but it just is a fact that it was done that way.

This in no way lessens the importance of penal substitution, nor do advocates of penal substitution deny this happened. They suggest that other scriptures shed light on everything that was going on when this happened. I don't have anything against the early church for not explaining all this.

Can you give an example of anyone who adheres to penal substitution who says this? You know as well as I do that plenty of those who reject penal substitution have no use for the cross at least in the sense that something was actually accomplished there.

You need to start referencing what you say. You are not qualified to act as your own reference either. Either site someone specifically as to backing up what you are saying so that we can see who they are and what all they represent or stop these nonsensical claims which simply aren't true.

No, it is not a bogus claim. I am not saying Penal Substitution theorists deny the cross was the method used. I am saying that the Penal Substitution theorists consider the cross only to be the method used (the cross was unnecessary...it could have been another method.

Penal Substitution Theory does not even require Jesus physicsl death. Jesus could have suffered the separation from God and then lived. Physical death is not a part of penal substitution (we die physically).

Historical Christianity knew why it had to be a cross, why His physical death was necessary.


I can be my reference because I am not speaking individual claims but the theory itself.

You want me to offer an example? Ok....you.

You indicated in the quoted post that Penal Substitution theorists accept the cross because God chose that method, you talk about what the cross accomplished, you mention fulfilling the OT.

But your view does not need the cross. Your view does not need Jesus' physical death. In other words, your answer to "why did Jesus have to due", "why the cross" is that God picked that method.


I don't mean you and other Penal Substitution theorists believe Jesus' suffering on the cross was meaningless. I mean you guys have no need for Jesus to have died in that way, or died physically at all, except the outcome.

For Penal Substitution theorists Jesus had to physically die only for the resurrection.


Your turn - to prove me wrong.

What did Jesus' physical death (the death we will experienxe) accomplish?

Why was it necessary, beyond fulfillment of the OT (which is a foreshadowing, so an invalid point), for Jesus to be crucified (why was that method so important)?

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I want to be ckear because I think you mistook my comment.

I am not saying that Penal Substitution theorists ignore Christ's death or the cross in that they do believe that on the cross God punished our sins laid on Jesus in stead of punishing us, and that there woukd be no resurrection had Jesus not died. They see the cross as God's choice if method. Obviously the OT told us in advance it woukd be a cross.

What I am saying is that Jesus' death on the cross is not important to Penal Substitution theorists in the sence Jesus could have suffered in many ways as long as it was God's wrath against the lost. Jesus' actual death (physical death) is not important in Penal Substitution Theory except for the resurrection (and that is a side note unrelated to redeeming man).

 

[Paleouss]

Thank you

The LAW and SIN are like that (at least in my experience).
LAW says "do not touch the stove, it is hot".
SIN says "How will you really know hot unless you touch the stove?" ... and so we get burned.

I think that as a practical explanation, this is a good one. That is, it is a good analogy of the 'curse' for common day application and how the two might interrelate. Thank you for sharing an example I can use.

However, I don't think this analogy touches on 'why the law?' in relation to 'why the Incarnation, death and resurrection?' and how the two are related. What I mean by this is that, under this analogy, it might be implied that God gave the law so that sin might be tempted to increase.

Now some might go directly to verses like Romans 5:20 where it says, "Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound." Here one might say, see, the law was given so that (A) there would be more sin. But how I just constructed this theological thought, I have just suggested that God wanted more and more sin. So He gave the law to tempt sin to increase.

But I think this formulation, above, is false. First, because God does not take "pleasure in wickedness" (Psalm 5:4). So saying God wanted more and more sin would be against God's character. It creates divine dissonance. It seems to me that God gave the law so the "offense might abound", as in so that fault or trespass might be credited.

So the law was given so that (B) there would be more fault credited. By this term fault, I mean to say that God gave the law so that mankind's 'individual sins' might be imputed and not just original sin that was imputed.

This understanding shown by (B) would fit well within the previous verses, I think. In that, Romans 5:14 says that "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam". So Romans 5:14 is suggesting that mankind kept dying due to original sin, yet, their own individual trespasses (sin) was not being counted against them (because there was no law to count it against them).

So God brought condemnation upon all mankind for their individual sins through the Moral Law. This was, as I have asserted before, a step in the stratagem of God to bring reconciliation to mankind through divine consistency (meaning according to and consistent with God's harmonious characteristics). Some might say, no, the law was to condemn mankind. But this intent of God seems to be false (even though the Moral Law does condemn). What I mean is that mankind was already 'condemned' by original sin. God needn't send the Moral Law to condemn mankind, they were already condemned by original sin and dying (Rom 5:14).

So if the Moral Law only places another charge upon the sinner, the two being original sin and now individual sin, then what is the point? Mankind is already condemned. Why not just wipe everything out? The answer is, the Moral Law was a step in the stratagem of God to bring reconciliation.

This long winded foundation was to get to the point that among the multiple purposes of the Incarnation, death and resurrection, one of those purposes is to deal with the power of sin and another one is to deal with the condemnation of the Moral Law that has already spoken, saying guilty and condemned.

Now we are back to the Incarnation, death and resurrection and its relationship to the Moral Law and how the justice of the Moral Law is satisfied.



Keep seeking God's truth

 

[Scarlett O.]

Thread far past 10 pages. Thread closed. Start another if you must.