Just how does the wrath of god be appeased if no penal Substitution?

[Yeshua1]

I would also encourage you to read these quotations from Augustine, John Chrysostom, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Lewis, all of which cite the injustice of Jesus' death as central to the atonement mechanism. But this is in contradiction to penal substitution, which claims that Jesus' death was just/deserved.

Augustine states that the cross is where the devil lost his right of death over humanity because he unjustly killed the Son of God in whom there was no sin:

It is not then difficult to see that the devil was conquered, when he who was slain by Him rose again. It is something more, and more profound of comprehension, to see that the devil was conquered when he thought himself to have conquered, that is, when Christ was slain. For then that blood, since it was His who had no sin at all, was poured out for the remission of our sins; that, because the devil deservedly held those whom, as guilty of sin, he bound by the condition of death, he might deservedly loose them through Him, whom, as guilty of no sin, the punishment of death undeservedly affected. The strong man was conquered by this righteousness, and bound with this chain, that his vessels might be spoiled, which with himself and his angels had been vessels of wrath while with him, and might be turned into vessels of mercy.[1]

John Chrysostom agrees,

“It is as if Christ said, ‘Now shall a trial be held, and a judgment be pronounced. How and in what manner? He (the devil) smote the first man (Adam), because he found him guilty of sin; for it was through sin that death entered in. But he did not find any sin in Me; wherefore then did he fall on Me and give Me up to the power of death? . . . How is the world now judged in Me?’ It is as if it were said to the devil at a seat of judgment: ‘Thou didst smite them all, because thou didst find them guilty of sin; wherefore then didst thou smite Christ? Is it not evident that thou didst this wrongfully? Therefore the whole world shall become righteous through Him.’”[2]

Anselm of Canterbury says this aspect is part of the popular view of atonement in his day. It is justice that sets Jesus free from death, not justice that kills Jesus:

“That God, in order to set mankind free, was obliged to act against the devil by justice rather than mighty power. We reason that thus the devil, having killed Him in whom there was no guilt deserving death and who was God, would justly lose the power which he used to have over sinners.”[3]

Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, affirms this as well:

“Christ's Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in Christ's Passion [the devil] exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by conspiring to bring about Christ's death, Who, being sinless, did not deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): "The devil was vanquished by Christ's justice: because, while discovering in Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him. And it is certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no debtor."

And even Martin Luther applies the loss of rights to the Law rather than the devil:

“Thou hearest that Christ was caught in the bondage in which we all were held, was set under the Law, was a man full of all grace, righteousness, etc., full of life, yea, He was even the Life itself; now comes the Law and casts itself at Him and would deal with Him as with all other men. Christ sees this, lets the tyrant perform his will upon Him, lets the reproach of all guilt fall against Himself as one accursed, yea, bears the name that He Himself is the curse, and goes to suffer for this cause, dies, and is buried. Now, thinks the Law, He is overpowered; but it knew not that it had so grievously mistaken itself, and that it had condemned and throttled the Son of God; and since it has now judged and condemned Him, who was guiltless and over whom it had no authority, it must in its turn be taken, and see itself made captive and crucified, and lose all its power, and lie under the feet of Him whom it had condemned.”[4][5]

When our Lord was roaming around Narnia in the form of a giant, magical, not-safe-yet-good lion, he said,

“when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” (it is interesting to think that if we read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe through the lens of Penal Substitution, the White Witch would represent God the Father! I highly doubt this was Lewis’ intention in the allegory)

[1] Augustine. De Trinity. Book 13, Chapter 15.

[2] Chrysostom, John. Homily LXVII. Database online. Philip Schaff: NPNF1-14. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

[3] Anselm, Why God Became Man. Book 1, Chapter 7. Anselm does not fully agree with this idea, but it is important to not that this was a popular view among Christians in the 11th century.

[4] Luther, Martin. Works, XXIII., p.709

[5] I am indebted to Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor, for the references to Chrysostom and Luther.

The great Mystery is that while upon the Cross, enduring the very judgement and wrath of god due towards sinners, Jesus Chrsit as that sin bearer really did deserve what he received from the father, for he took what was due to us!

 

[Van]

You asked: "According to your understanding, after God "repays" sinners with "affliction" are the sinners justified?" No.

You asked: "What is your view of the meaning of "atonement?"" Here is a nice meaty answer for you, pertaining to our discussion of restitution (or restoration):

Due to God’s gracious covenant, justice requires restoration for damage suffered by innocent parties. humans have totally and severely damaged themselves by their own sin (God is not damaged by our sin. In the case of sin against God, sin is an offense that damages the offender). God desires to enact restoration for this destruction, but humans are not innocent, they are guilty. There is none righteous, not one. So the question is: How can a just God, a covenant God, enact restoration for guilty humanity’s self-destruction? Answer: God becomes a human in the person of Jesus Christ, lives completely innocently (or righteously) and therefore merits the covenantal blessings by which humanity’s destruction will be restored. Jesus then voluntarily endures all of humanity’s sinful destruction against himself by suffering crucifixion at the hands of all humans on the cross. Jesus therefore merits restoration for all of humanity’s sinful destruction, for he alone has suffered sin’s destruction as an innocent party. This restoration manifests in His resurrection, when “God raised our Great Shepherd up from the dead through the blood of the eternal covenant (Heb 13:20).” So the correct response to the question “Why did Jesus die?” is: in order for all suffering and death to be repaired by God in accordance with his justice, all suffering and death had to be endured by a perfectly innocent and righteous person (for only innocent persons have the right of restoration for wrongs suffered) and only Jesus qualifies as that perfectly righteous person.

Divine justice is therefore satisfied in the resurrection as the reversal and reparation of all the sin that Jesus unjustly suffered on the cross. Jesus dies under the unjust judgment of humans, and is raised by the just judgment of God. Jesus’ reward, or inheritance, of the covenantal blessings applies to the rest of humanity if by the power of the Holy Spirit we participate in His death (through remorse) and participate in His resurrection (through repentance). So the gospel is not that “God substituted Himself to satisfy His own wrath,” which is not Biblical terminology. The gospel is exactly what Paul says it is: “the good news that God has fulfilled His promises to our children in that He raised Jesus up from the dead (Acts 13:30).” The gospel is that God’s covenantal promises to restore the world from Adam’s curse (the subject of the Old Testament) are fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection (the subject of the New Testament).

You asked: "If God repays sinners with "affliction" in Hades and Gehenna is that not consistent with the wages of sin being death?" It is consistent. What is inconsistent is the idea of humanity having a "debt of death," when the Bible says the exact opposite, that the "wages of sin is death." Wages are the exact opposite of debts. But this causes a problem for Penal Substitution which is orchestrated around Jesus paying humanity's "debt of punishment" or "debt of death" when in fact no such thing exists.

Lets leave it that my view of what Christ accomplished on the cross, and what is accomplished when God transfers an individual into Christ differs significantly from the various possible meanings of the above.

 

[Yeshua1]

Lets leave it that my view of what Christ accomplished on the cross, and what is accomplished when God transfers an individual into Christ differs significantly from the various possible meanings of the above.

And that the salvation process has Election and regeneration before faith in Christ!

 

[Van]

And that the salvation process has Election and regeneration before faith in Christ!

Scripture please

Since we are chosen for salvation on the basis of God crediting our faith as righteousness, it is impossible to be saved before our faith has been credited as righteousness. Romans 4:4-5, Romans 4:23-24, Romans 5:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

 

[Arthur King]

The great Mystery is that while upon the Cross, enduring the very judgement and wrath of god due towards sinners, Jesus Chrsit as that sin bearer really did deserve what he received from the father, for he took what was due to us!

So you are saying that all the theologians I have listed are wrong in saying that Jesus' death was unjust. As well as Peter in 1 Peter 2:19-25, in which he clearly says that Jesus' death was unjust, and it his unjust suffering that secures grace with God. Peter even uses the phrase sin bearer in the context of Jesus' unjust suffering. So no, the phrase "sin bearer" does nothing to show that Jesus' death was deserved, and it also does nothing to show substitution. Peter says that Jesus dies, not so that we wont have to, but so that we can die and rise in him. Here is the passage:

For this finds grace, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds grace with God.

21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

 

[Arthur King]

And that the salvation process has Election and regeneration before faith in Christ!

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread, which is the nature of the atonement?

 

[Arthur King]

Where are sins paid and atone for then in the Christ is victor model?

Jesus pays our debt of obedience. Jesus does not pay our debt of punishment, because there is no such thing as a debt of punishment.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would also encourage you to read these quotations from Augustine, John Chrysostom, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Lewis

I don't find debate by quotation particularly helpful. It tends to be a case of "My Dad's bigger than your Dad!" But lest you think that I am without support, here's one from Aquinas:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom He inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; He was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he himself might suffer, God have him One who would satisfy for him.. Paul stresses this, saying, He has delivered Him for us all, and,God has established Him [Christ] as a propitiation by His blood through faith.'
[Summa Theologiae, vol. 54, 3a, quest. 47, art. 30. Emphases in original]

And one from Luther:

''Wherefore Christ was not only crucified and died, but sin also (through the love of the divine Majesty) was laid on Him. When sin was laid on Him, then cometh the law and saith, "Every sinner must die." Therefore, O Christ, if Thou will answer, become guilty, and suffer punishment for sinners, thou must also bear sin and malediction. Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged on a tree, therefore Christ was accursed of God.'
[Commentary on Galatians 3:13]

And here's one from John Stott which I quote from memory: 'We must never suppose that on the cross the Father inflicted upon the Son a penalty that He was unwilling to bear. Nor must we suppose that the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to bestow. At the cross, both Father and Son worked in perfect harmony for the salvation of Mankind.'

 

[JonC]

I don't find debate by quotation particularly helpful. It tends to be a case of "My Dad's bigger than your Dad!" But lest you think that I am without support, here's one from Aquinas:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom He inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; He was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he himself might suffer, God have him One who would satisfy for him.. Paul stresses this, saying, He has delivered Him for us all, and,God has established Him [Christ] as a propitiation by His blood through faith.'
[Summa Theologiae, vol. 54, 3a, quest. 47, art. 30. Emphases in original]

And one from Luther:

''Wherefore Christ was not only crucified and died, but sin also (through the love of the divine Majesty) was laid on Him. When sin was laid on Him, then cometh the law and saith, "Every sinner must die." Therefore, O Christ, if Thou will answer, become guilty, and suffer punishment for sinners, thou must also bear sin and malediction. Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged on a tree, therefore Christ was accursed of God.'
[Commentary on Galatians 3:13]

And here's one from John Stott which I quote from memory: 'We must never suppose that on the cross the Father inflicted upon the Son a penalty that He was unwilling to bear. Nor must we suppose that the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to bestow. At the cross, both Father and Son worked in perfect harmony for the salvation of Mankind.'

Aquinas (in Summa Theologiae) offers a very good denial of Penal Substitution. I do not hold his view but his insistence God could not have punished Christ for our sins was interesting.

 

[Arthur King]

Why would it do that? The reverse is true. 'He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities.' And how was this done? 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.' First our sins were laid upon Him; then the penalty of them was paid by Him, along with the curse that attended them (Galatians 3:13).

Sacrifices must be without blemish to be effectual. The shed blood of the innocent is what purifies corruption, that is why everything is sprinkled with blood in the OT in order to cleanse it. If Jesus becomes a sinner in any sense, that means his shed blood would be ineffectual to purify us from sin.

No. The resurrection is the sign that Christ's sacrifice was acceptable to God. The union of the believer with Christ (a glorious truth) does not alter the fact that He was manifested to take away our sins.

The resurrection is more than that. The resurrection is the satisfaction of divine justice as the reversal of Jesus' unjust death, and the means of reversing our own death. Read Ephesians 2:1-10. The resurrection is the solution to our problem of being dead in trespasses and sins.

Whenever anyone uses the word 'ontological' I tend to reach, metaphorically, for my shotgun. Why do you suppose that 2 Cor 5:21 does not mean exactly what it says? Look at the previous verse. It is precisely because Christ became sin that the way to reconciliation with God is possible. 'God set Him forth as a propitiation........that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

I've explained exactly what I believe 2 Cor 5:21 to mean. Jesus became the ultimate expression of human sin, in that the greatest sin in human history was his crucifixion. Propitiation just means "wrath aversion" or "wrath reversal." It does not mean "wrath displacement" as penal substitution would have it. We have been purified by dying in Christ and rising with him, and so wrath is unnecessary to purify God's creation of our corruption.

And this, with respect, is waffle. 2 Cor 5:21 is explained by Isaiah 53:6. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.' And Christ did not die to become the 'ultimate expression of human sin,' whatever that is supposed to mean. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' He died bearing our sins and the curse attached to them (hence the use of xulon instead of stauron). And all sin without exception is sin against God (Genesis 39:9; Psalms 51:4). But if I were the only person who had ever sinned, it would still be necessary for Christ to suffer and die to save me.

The backbone of 2 Cor 5 is not Isaiah 53, but Isaiah 49, which is what Paul quotes. It is about God's fulfillment of his covenant promises to bless all nations through Israel. Paul is saying that the church in Christ is the means by which God is fulfilling these promises hence why "we become the righteousness of God in the Messiah." The righteousness of God refers to his covenant faithfulness.

Regarding Isaiah 53, I have already pointed out on this thread that the logic of the text contradicts penal substitution. On penal substitution, it would read "by his wounding we avoid being wounded" but what the text actually says is "by his wounds we are healed." By his death the dead are brought back to life. And it is clear from the immediate context of Isaiah 53 and from the longest NT commentary on Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 2:19-25, that the suffering of the Servant is unjust.

And Galatians 3 I have also responded to on this thread already. Jesus suffers the curse along with Israel (not as Israel's substitute) and he suffers it unjustly, so that the curse would be reversed by his resurrection.

 

[Arthur King]

I don't find debate by quotation particularly helpful. It tends to be a case of "My Dad's bigger than your Dad!" But lest you think that I am without support, here's one from Aquinas:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom He inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; He was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he himself might suffer, God have him One who would satisfy for him.. Paul stresses this, saying, He has delivered Him for us all, and,God has established Him [Christ] as a propitiation by His blood through faith.'
[Summa Theologiae, vol. 54, 3a, quest. 47, art. 30. Emphases in original]

And one from Luther:

''Wherefore Christ was not only crucified and died, but sin also (through the love of the divine Majesty) was laid on Him. When sin was laid on Him, then cometh the law and saith, "Every sinner must die." Therefore, O Christ, if Thou will answer, become guilty, and suffer punishment for sinners, thou must also bear sin and malediction. Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged on a tree, therefore Christ was accursed of God.'
[Commentary on Galatians 3:13]

And here's one from John Stott which I quote from memory: 'We must never suppose that on the cross the Father inflicted upon the Son a penalty that He was unwilling to bear. Nor must we suppose that the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to bestow. At the cross, both Father and Son worked in perfect harmony for the salvation of Mankind.'

Yes, Thomas Aquinas and Luther definitely have inconsistencies in their views of the atonement. Back them into a corner, and they are saying that Jesus' death was both just and unjust at the same time, which is a contradiction. This is because Thomas really amped up the idea of a "debt of punishment" and composed a mechanism by which this needed to be satisfied, when Biblically a debt of punishment is not something that exists.

And John Stott has one of the most confused statements on this idea. On page 270 of The Cross of Christ he says that Jesus “paid sin’s wage” on our behalf. Anyone who has ever had a job knows this makes no sense. Wages are not something that we pay; wages are something we earn. Owing and earning are opposite sides of the economic metaphor. Thus, we do not owe death to God. We earn death for our sin. And we all justly receive the death we have earned when we suffer our sin’s consequences in this life and finally when we physically die. Our suffering and physical death is not a payment to God for our sin, and does not atone for our sin. Our atonement is in this: Jesus has voluntarily interceded to receive the wages of our sin along with us by suffering and dying on the cross. But he, being without sin and having paid our debt of obedience, has received these wages undeservedly and unjustly. Justice therefore demands that these wages be taken back, and that Jesus’ suffering and death be undone, reversed. Hence, Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus application of His death and resurrection to us through the Holy Spirit is our atonement.

 

[Noah Hirsch]

The Cross of Christ is the basis for Justification, not our own faith!

Salvation is by faith in Christ, not by faith in the goodness of our own faith or in our faith as our righteousness. When we speak of being justified by faith what we are really talking about is being declared righteous by God on account of the righteousness of Christ through faith. Faith is the instrument by which we receive the benefits of Christ’s finished work on the cross for sinners. Both the substitutionary atonement and justification by the righteousness of Christ through faith are essential doctrines of the Christian faith. If we deny substitutionary atonement and yet maintain that we are saved by faith alone, then our faith cannot be in an object that leads to eternal life and the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Van]

Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is simply a Trojan Horse for Calvinism's view of Limited Atonement.
Salvation occurs when an individual "receives" the reconciliation provided by Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross. An individual "receives" the reconciliation when God transfers the individual spiritually into Christ. Not in Christ, not saved, in Christ saved. The basis of God choosing an individual and transferring them into Christ is God crediting the individual's faith in Christ as righteousness.

I asked one poster what "atonement" means and got several paragraphs, but biblically the idea is reconciliation to God. Not reconciled, not in Christ. Reconciled in Christ. Reconciliation occurs when an individual is transferred into Christ where they are justified, forgiven, and saved from God's wrath. Christ is our propitiation, thus in Christ is to be inside the propitiatory shelter of Christ. Not in Christ, the wrath of God abides on the individual.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you are saying that all the theologians I have listed are wrong in saying that Jesus' death was unjust. As well as Peter in 1 Peter 2:19-25, in which he clearly says that Jesus' death was unjust, and it his unjust suffering that secures grace with God. Peter even uses the phrase sin bearer in the context of Jesus' unjust suffering. So no, the phrase "sin bearer" does nothing to show that Jesus' death was deserved, and it also does nothing to show substitution. Peter says that Jesus dies, not so that we wont have to, but so that we can die and rise in him. Here is the passage:

For this finds grace, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds grace with God.

21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

again, from the perspective of who Jesus was and is in himself, he was sinless and did not deserve death upon that Cross, BUT, he also took upon Himself the sins of the lost that he would redden, so at that moment in time became very sin, and so the Father would view and deal with him while upon the Cross as if was a lost sinner!

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture please

Since we are chosen for salvation on the basis of God crediting our faith as righteousness, it is impossible to be saved before our faith has been credited as righteousness. Romans 4:4-5, Romans 4:23-24, Romans 5:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Romans 8, Ephesians 2:8-10, Ephesians 1:4, John 1:13

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus pays our debt of obedience. Jesus does not pay our debt of punishment, because there is no such thing as a debt of punishment.

there is a sin debt of obligation owed to God for breaking his law!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't find debate by quotation particularly helpful. It tends to be a case of "My Dad's bigger than your Dad!" But lest you think that I am without support, here's one from Aquinas:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom He inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; He was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he himself might suffer, God have him One who would satisfy for him.. Paul stresses this, saying, He has delivered Him for us all, and,God has established Him [Christ] as a propitiation by His blood through faith.'
[Summa Theologiae, vol. 54, 3a, quest. 47, art. 30. Emphases in original]

And one from Luther:

''Wherefore Christ was not only crucified and died, but sin also (through the love of the divine Majesty) was laid on Him. When sin was laid on Him, then cometh the law and saith, "Every sinner must die." Therefore, O Christ, if Thou will answer, become guilty, and suffer punishment for sinners, thou must also bear sin and malediction. Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged on a tree, therefore Christ was accursed of God.'
[Commentary on Galatians 3:13]

And here's one from John Stott which I quote from memory: 'We must never suppose that on the cross the Father inflicted upon the Son a penalty that He was unwilling to bear. Nor must we suppose that the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to bestow. At the cross, both Father and Son worked in perfect harmony for the salvation of Mankind.'

All of them sound like that they would support Pst as Calvin saw it from the scriptures, as against the false views of those like NT Wright!

 

[Yeshua1]

Salvation is by faith in Christ, not by faith in the goodness of our own faith or in our faith as our righteousness. When we speak of being justified by faith what we are really talking about is being declared righteous by God on account of the righteousness of Christ through faith. Faith is the instrument by which we receive the benefits of Christ’s finished work on the cross for sinners. Both the substitutionary atonement and justification by the righteousness of Christ through faith are essential doctrines of the Christian faith. If we deny substitutionary atonement and yet maintain that we are saved by faith alone, then our faith cannot be in an object that leads to eternal life and the forgiveness of sins.

That last part of your post gets a big amen!

 

[Yeshua1]

Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is simply a Trojan Horse for Calvinism's view of Limited Atonement.
Salvation occurs when an individual "receives" the reconciliation provided by Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross. An individual "receives" the reconciliation when God transfers the individual spiritually into Christ. Not in Christ, not saved, in Christ saved. The basis of God choosing an individual and transferring them into Christ is God crediting the individual's faith in Christ as righteousness.

I asked one poster what "atonement" means and got several paragraphs, but biblically the idea is reconciliation to God. Not reconciled, not in Christ. Reconciled in Christ. Reconciliation occurs when an individual is transferred into Christ where they are justified, forgiven, and saved from God's wrath. Christ is our propitiation, thus in Christ is to be inside the propitiatory shelter of Christ. Not in Christ, the wrath of God abides on the individual.

Pst actually is the vehicle by which God is able to both stay Holy, and extend grace towards lost sinners!

 

[Van]

Romans 8, Ephesians 2:8-10, Ephesians 1:4, John 1:13

Thanks for citing more verses that support my view and preclude yours.