Penal Substitution Atonement Theory - Question

[CJP69]

I don't need to use philosophy to prove Scripture is objective.

You can't even say it without using philosophy! Every intelligible syllable you utter only has meaning BECAUSE of philosophy!

I already proved it (I stated that by Scripture I mean "what is written", the text of Scripture").

Okay, so let me see if I can get you to see what I'm trying to communicate here...

What you are doing here is implying an argument where your major premise is that "what is written in Scripture is the truth".

Already sounds like philosophy, right? But it goes further because how do you know that "what is written in Scripture is the truth"?

The answer to that question is going to involve things like the existence of God and His relationship to mankind and all sorts of other very philosophical subjects.

That is objective. We all have the same text, can reference the same translations and source documents. It is objective.

This is yet another philosophical argument you're making.

But when used to develop ideas and theories, that is philosophy.

NO! That's you own private definition of what philosophy is. Philosophy is the study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.

For example - "sin brings forth death" is objective. You can count the words, the letters. Sin brings forth death

I am not denying the existence of objective truth but rather the false dichotomy you've erected. Not all philosophy is truth but all truth is philosophical. The very concept of truth (not to mention evidence, argument, proof, belief, love, hate, good, evil, etc) has no meaning or application outside the realm of philosophy.

Now, if I were to say that means that God punished our sin with death then that is philosophy (it is deriving a teaching from those words, and it is subjective as others may derive opposing doctrines).

I don't disagree that it is a form of philosophy but its the wrong word. Deriving a teaching from scripture is the definition of the word "doctrine" and/or "theology" (depending on the context) not "philosophy".

Imagine a traffic cop who told you to "proceed through the intersection when the light changes". Well, which light? You'd rightly ask! You're making a similar error here. All doctrine is philosophy but not all philosophy is doctrine. The two terms are not interchangable in the manner you are interchanging them. One is an application of the other.

The act of testing doctrine against what is written is not philosophy.

Yes, it totally is exactly that!

The act of testing doctrine against what we believe is taught in Scripture is philosophy and it is subjective.

You can't even begin the process of determining whether a thing is objective or subjective without the use of philosophy! That sentence doesn't even hardly make sense to say because the very act of determining whether something is objective or subjective is itself what philosophy is!

I believe that sin brings forth death. I can test this against Scripture - sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

A very philosophical thing to do!

You rejected the idea that sin brings forth death

No, I don't!

Compare that to Scripture - sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
That fails the test.
But compare it against what you believe (a judicial philosophy) - God must punish sin with death. Then it passes, but it is subjective.

See the difference?

Do you?

This is just you making an argument. You present premises and use logic to go from those premises to a conclusion (e.g. "That fails the test."). That's philosophy, my friend. I mean that is the very act of philosophy itself! If you use it in relation to nature, its called natural philosophy (a.k.a. science), if you use it in relation to God is called "Theology" (i.e. the logos of the theos) or "doctrine". If you use it to study physical life, we call it biology (i.e. the logic (logos) of life). Etc. It's all philosophy!

The bottom line is simply that you have a false understanding of what the word "philosophy" means.

philosophy /fĭ-lŏs′ə-fē/
noun

1. The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
2. A system of thought based on or involving such study.
   "the philosophy of Hume."
3. The study of the theoretical underpinnings of a particular field or discipline.

We all do use philosophy to form our beliefs. My insurance is that those fundamental beliefs (beliefs upon which we build) should be limited to the text of Scripture.

A point with which I agree completely!

 

[JonC]

You can't even say it without using philosophy! Every intelligible syllable you utter only has meaning BECAUSE of philosophy!


Okay, so let me see if I can get you to see what I'm trying to communicate here...

What you are doing here is implying an argument where your major premise is that "what is written in Scripture is the truth".

Already sounds like philosophy, right? But it goes further because how do you know that "what is written in Scripture is the truth"?

The answer to that question is going to involve things like the existence of God and His relationship to mankind and all sorts of other very philosophical subjects.


This is yet another philosophical argument you're making.


NO! That's you own private definition of what philosophy is. Philosophy is the study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.


I am not denying the existence of objective truth but rather the false dichotomy you've erected. Not all philosophy is truth but all truth is philosophical. The very concept of truth (not to mention evidence, argument, proof, belief, love, hate, good, evil, etc) has no meaning or application outside the realm of philosophy.


I don't disagree that it is a form of philosophy but its the wrong word. Deriving a teaching from scripture is the definition of the word "doctrine" and/or "theology" (depending on the context) not "philosophy".

Imagine a traffic cop who told you to "proceed through the intersection when the light changes". Well, which light? You'd rightly ask! You're making a similar error here. All doctrine is philosophy but not all philosophy is doctrine. The two terms are not interchangable in the manner you are interchanging them. One is an application of the other.


Yes, it totally is exactly that!


You can't even begin the process of determining whether a thing is objective or subjective without the use of philosophy! That sentence doesn't even hardly make sense to say because the very act of determining whether something is objective or subjective is itself what philosophy is!


A very philosophical thing to do!


No, I don't!


Do you?

This is just you making an argument. You present premises and use logic to go from those premises to a conclusion (e.g. "That fails the test."). That's philosophy, my friend. I mean that is the very act of philosophy itself! If you use it in relation to nature, its called natural philosophy (a.k.a. science), if you use it in relation to God is called "Theology" (i.e. the logos of the theos) or "doctrine". If you use it to study physical life, we call it biology (i.e. the logic (logos) of life). Etc. It's all philosophy!

The bottom line is simply that you have a false understanding of what the word "philosophy" means.

philosophy /fĭ-lŏs′ə-fē/
noun

1. The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
2. A system of thought based on or involving such study.
   "the philosophy of Hume."
3. The study of the theoretical underpinnings of a particular field or discipline.

A point with which I agree completely!

Sure I can say it without using philosophy.

It is exactly what the Bible says, independent of philosophy. My understanding does not have an impact on those words.

That is the difference.

I do not need philosophy to say that "Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.". Now I may to develop a doctrine about this event, but I don't have to develop a doctrine about that event - I can just take it as it comes.....and I do (I don't have a firm eschatology....that's one of those topics in which I have no interest).

 

[CJP69]

Lol.....yep. I've engaged in topics I care nothing about. I know what you mean.

Theology Proper is the study of God the Father (not His actions but His Person). You are talking about Hamartiology.

Nope!

Is God real?
Is God alive?
Is God personal?
Is God relational?
Is God righteous?
Is God Just?
Can God change and if so how?


It's theology proper 101.

Hamartiology is the study of sin.

But here you are still doing what Barth called philosophy because you are going around the Cross. We cannot know the Father except as revealed through the Son.

Do try to stay away from bald claims. Especially ones that have no foundation at all in the discussion and which are just another example of you talking down to me like I'm an idiot.

And you are mixing up two very distinct things by combining them.

Blah blah blah.

Sin brings forth death. The wages of sin is death. God does not need to punish sin because sin brings forth its own punishment.

No it flat out does not do any such thing!

Just what is it that you think vengeance is and why do you suppose that God claims it as His own?

Vengeance is justice and God is the only one who can meet it out properly - to answer my own question.

God punished the wicked with wrath stored up until that day at Judgment.

Two separate things - it is appointed man once to die AND THEN the Judgment. This judgment is God's judgment on the wicked.

Which, if is He is just, HE MUST DO!!!

Why?

Because of the definition of the word justice and how simply leaving the wicked to their own devices ignores their victims and is therefore unjust, by definition.

Now, that has been stated, restated and restated again. You can either respond to the argument by addressing directly the definition of the words "Justice" and "Vengeance" or you can be counted, by me at least, to have conceded the point by reason of lack of substantive response.

 

[CJP69]

Sure I can say it without using philosophy.

You can't say anything without philosophy. Every intelligible thing that comes out of your mouth has meaning BECAUSE of philosophy!

It is exactly what the Bible says, independent of philosophy. My understanding does not have an impact on those words.

That is the difference.

You could not read the words without philosophy!

I do not need philosophy to say that "Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.".

Yes! You absolutely do!

Now I may to develop a doctrine about this event, but I don't have to develop a doctrine about that event - I can just take it as it comes.....and I do (I don't have a firm eschatology....that's one of those topics in which I have no interest).

Taking it as it comes is both doctrine and philosophy! BY DEFINITION!!

You do not get to make up your own definitions of words, Jon! That's not how sound reason works!

 

[JonC]

Nope!

Is God real?
Is God alive?
Is God personal?
Is God relational?
Is God righteous?
Is God Just?
Can God change and if so how?


It's theology proper 101.

Hamartiology is the study of sin.


Do try to stay away from bald claims. Especially ones that have no foundation at all in the discussion and which are just another example of you talking down to me like I'm an idiot.


Blah blah blah.


No it flat out does not do any such thing!

Just what is it that you think vengeance is and why do you suppose that God claims it as His own?

Vengeance is justice and God is the only one who can meet it out properly - to answer my own question.


Which, if is He is just, HE MUST DO!!!

Why?

Because of the definition of the word justice and how simply leaving the wicked to their own devices ignores their victims and is therefore unjust, by definition.

Now, that has been stated, restated and restated again. You can either respond to the argument by addressing directly the definition of the words "Justice" and "Vengeance" or you can be counted, by me at least, to have conceded the point by reason of lack of substantive response.

Your mistake here is pretending that I have said that God does not judge the wicked. That is not at all what I said.

I said that God DOES judge the wicked. I said that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, that sin brings forth death, and that God has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.

You are making a strawman argument.

 

[kyredneck]

“Go, call your husband, and come here.”

There! So did I.

Bud, you've absolutely no business calling others 'weird'.

 

[CJP69]

Your mistake here is pretending that I have said that God does not judge the wicked. That is not at all what I said.

You've very clearly stated that He CAN forgo the punishment of the wicked, not that He has or will and my arguments are based squarely on that statement.

I said that God DOES judge the wicked.

Why? If He doesn't have to do so to remain just, then why would He do it?

That's a real question that I expect a genuine answer too. It is not rhetorical.

I said that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, that sin brings forth death, and that God has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.

You are making a strawman argument.

On the contrary, I am PROVING your doctrine false! You're just trying to wiggle out of having to address it.

As I said from the very beginning of this, God is Just, therefore, you are wrong.

If you think that God can, by any means, forgo the punishment of the wicked then you either don't know that God is just or you don't know what justice is and it is precisely this idea that Christ's death was something other than God the Son offering Himself as a substitution for those who would believe where He took the punishment that we deserve, that has produced this particular heresy (yes, believing the God could even possibly be unjust is heresy). It not only results in a belief that God either is or can be unjust but it a rejection of the very gospel itself.

I just thought of something as I was writing that last sentence. I wonder....

What, in your view, does it mean to die?

When you say that Jesus died, just what is it that you mean by that?

Do you believe that God died on that cross?

 

[CJP69]

Bud, you've absolutely no business calling others 'weird'.

Do you really not understand the point?

 

[JonC]

You've very clearly stated that He CAN forgo the punishment of the wicked,

I'll stop at this because it is a false accusation. No need to read any more of your post as it begins with a strawman argument.

I believe and have clearly posted that God will punish the wicked, that His wrath is "stored up until that day", that He will judge men, that the wicked will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

If you can't grasp that as God punishing the wicked then I doubt you are able to comprehend any passage presented here.


The wicked will perish. God will punish the wicked. The wicked will be cast into the outer darkness, into the Lake of Fire.

(I know that is repetitive, but I typed it slowly for you this time ).

 

[JonC]

Why? If He doesn't have to do so to remain just, then why would He do it?

lol....because He is God. You want a list of rules for God to follow, a chain to bind God. It isn't that way.

God acts in accordance with His nature. This is what Psalm 22 is focused on - the Righteousness of God. Remember? The psalmist please, mentioning the forefathers who were forsaken and suffering.....God delivered them.

Why will God judge the wicked? Because He is just and He is love. The wicked will not be a part of His new creation. They will be cast away - cast into the Outer Darkness, into the Lake of Fire.

 

[kyredneck]

I think this entire argument is ridiculous and so will not engage it any further

Please, spare us the chutzpah, leave my thread.

 

[CJP69]

I'll stop at this because it is a false accusation. No need to read any more of your post as it begins with a strawman argument.

I believe and have clearly posted that God will punish the wicked, that His wrath is "stored up until that day", that He will judge men, that the wicked will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

If you can't grasp that as God punishing the wicked then I doubt you are able to comprehend any passage presented here.


The wicked will perish. God will punish the wicked. The wicked will be cast into the outer darkness, into the Lake of Fire.

(I know that is repetitive, but I typed it slowly for you this time ).

The entire thread is still here for the world to read!

It was actual Author King that stated...

"God doesn't have to punish sin. He could just let humanity continually destroy ourselves in our own sinful behavior forever.

Do you not believe that sin is self destructive? Do you you not believe that if God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would still plunge sinners into destruction and misery?"​

You you have, on more than one occasion told me explicitly that you agree with him. Your exact words were...

"I agree with Arthur. God does not have to do anything."​

Now, this is your one and only chance, Jon! I'm well and truly fed up with it. You will either admit that you agree with Author's statement and admit that you told me as much or I will simply put you on ignore. I do not discuss Christian doctrine with those who either deny the gospel or who have a faulty relationship with the plain and simple truth.

 

[CJP69]

lol....because He is God. You want a list of rules for God to follow, a chain to bind God. It isn't that way.

And so in one post you claim I'm making a false accusation and in other you make the very claim you said was a false accusation!

This would be funny if it were so insanely innane!

God acts in accordance with His nature.

So does everything else that acts. This is a completely meaningless thing to say.

God acts righteously, which includes visiting justice upon the wicked. GOD CANNOT skip over justice and remain just!

To think otherwise is to say that God is arbitrary, which is the exact opposite of just.

I say it again...

God is just, therefore, you are wrong!

This is what Psalm 22 is focused on - the Righteousness of God. Remember? The psalmist please, mentioning the forefathers who were forsaken and suffering.....God delivered them.

Why will God judge the wicked? Because He is just and He is love. The wicked will not be a part of His new creation. They will be cast away - cast into the Outer Darkness, into the Lake of Fire.

And if He were to choose not to do so?

 

[JonC]

The entire thread is still here for the world to read!

It was actual Author King that stated...

"God doesn't have to punish sin. He could just let humanity continually destroy ourselves in our own sinful behavior forever.

Do you not believe that sin is self destructive? Do you you not believe that if God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would still plunge sinners into destruction and misery?"​

You you have, on more than one occasion told me explicitly that you agree with him. Your exact words were...

"I agree with Arthur. God does not have to do anything."​

Now, this is your one and only chance, Jon! I'm well and truly fed up with it. You will either admit that you agree with Author's statement and admit that you told me as much or I will simply put you on ignore. I do not discuss Christian doctrine with those who either deny the gospel or who have a faulty relationship with the plain and simple truth.

You make that to mean that God does not punish sin.

I am not sure if you are being dishonest (I don't think so) or if you are simply not grasping what has been said.

The point is that if God did nothing then we would distill due because (like the verse YOU provided states) sin brings forth death.

But nobody is saying that God does not punish the wicked, or that there is not a Judgment, or that the wicked will be "cast into the Lake of Fire".

What is being said is that sin brings forth death.
God does not have to punish sin. Sin itself (as the verse states) brings forth death. God still judges the wicked (it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment).

Read the passages you posted.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

This is nothing new:

Genesis 3:15 Commentaries: And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." (biblehub.com)

What's 'new and strange' is the idea that Satan had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Christ as posited by @canadyjd and @Martin Marprelate and @Mikoo (he agrees with Martin a lot in the background).

Give us some examples of theologians that agree with you - that Satan had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Christ.

I seem to recall something about Satan entering into Judas to betray Jesus?

 

[5 point Gillinist]

You embellish. Actually, the question was:

"Does the Biblical fact that 'the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan', was behind the crucifixion of Christ somehow contradict Penal Substitution Theory?"





I agree with Martin, although he acts as if it destroys the theory of PST.

No. God in His sovereignty uses all sorts of means to accomplish His will. Satan was used as a means to accomplish His will for Job.

 

[JonC]

And so in one post you claim I'm making a false accusation and in other you make the very claim you said was a false accusation!

This would be funny if it were so insanely innane!


So does everything else that acts. This is a completely meaningless thing to say.

God acts righteously, which includes visiting justice upon the wicked. GOD CANNOT skip over justice and remain just!

To think otherwise is to say that God is arbitrary, which is the exact opposite of just.

I say it again...

God is just, therefore, you are wrong!


And if He were to choose not to do so?

You are not grasping the conversation.

1. God will punish the wicked. His wrath is stored up until that Day. In Christ we escape the wrath to come. The wicked will be punished. This is in God's nature....His character....His own righteousness.

2. But God does not have to punish sin because sin brings forth death. God can forgive sin. God will punish the wicked.


You are reading these posts without comprehending what is being said.


If you drink poison you will die. Somebody does not have to kill you for drinking poison. The poison will do the trick.

 

[CJP69]

You make that to mean that God does not punish sin.

No! I read it and take it to be consistent with your stated belief that God COULD forgo the punishment of the wicked.

I am not sure if you are being dishonest (I don't think so) or if you are simply not grasping what has been said.

The point is that if God did nothing then we would distill due because (like the verse YOU provided states) sin brings forth death.

But nobody is saying that God does not punish the wicked, or that there is not a Judgment, or that the wicked will be "cast into the Lake of Fire".

I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED that anyone said that God DOESN'T or WON'T but that He COULD!!!!!!!!!!

What is being said is that sin brings forth death.
God does not have to punish sin. Sin itself (as the verse states) brings forth death. God still judges the wicked (it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment).

Read the passages you posted.

Now deny that you just said what I put into great big letters so that even you, the guy who wrote the post, can see and read for himself!

My every argument has been address to that precise sentiment.

GOD IS JUST! Therefore, you are wrong!

 

[CJP69]

You are not grasping the conversation.

1. God will punish the wicked. His wrath is stored up until that Day. In Christ we escape the wrath to come. The wicked will be punished. This is in God's nature....His character....His own righteousness.

2. But God does not have to punish sin because sin brings forth death. God can forgive sin. God will punish the wicked.


You are reading these posts without comprehending what is being said.


If you drink poison you will die. Somebody does not have to kill you for drinking poison. The poison will do the trick.

I am grasping that you cannot admit the truth.

Good bye!

 

[JonC]

No! I read it and take it to be consistent with your stated belief that God COULD forgo the punishment of the wicked.

But that is what I mean. You are not comprehending at all, but instead making a strawman argument.

The reason God will punish the wicked is not based on a set of principles God follows. God can do whatever God wants to do.

It isn't whether God is able to not punish the wicked but the fact that God WILL punish the wicked based on God's revealed nature and His Word.

Again, nobody is claiming that God will not punish the wicked.

The point is that sin brings forth death. God irs not need to punish sin in order for death to be the result of sin.

Why? The verse YOU posted tells us.

Because sin brings forth death.


You are not grasping what is being posted. The point is not God's ability but that sin itself brings forth death. God's judgment comes afterwards.