DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Jon, I'm having trouble seeing much difference in these two statements. The second statement seems to say he was stricken for us, bore our sins. Can I assume in our place? They look the same to me.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Penal Substitution Atonement Theory
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
Jon, I'm having trouble seeing much difference in these two statements. The second statement seems to say he was stricken for us, bore our sins. Can I assume in our place? They look the same to me.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I have only heard if this stated by modern atheist cynics who think Christianity is an off shoot of a nomadic pagan religion.
If you have a different theory then state it. My question for you is do you think as a Christian that it was necessary that Christ die on the cross? If it was necessary then why?
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Once the thread hit a dead end when I asked you why the priests and people were commanded of God to lay their hands on the sacrifice before slaying the sacrifice:
Lev_3:2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
Lev_3:8 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar.
Lev_3:13 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about.
Lev_4:4 And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before the LORD.
Lev_4:15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.
Lev_4:24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.
Lev_4:29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
Lev_4:33 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.
Lev_16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and CONFESS over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
Only a Japhetite could fail to see how laying one's hand on a victim and confessing one's sins over it amounts to a transference of guilt, thus also transferring the death sentence from the offeror to the sacrifice.
New Testament confirmation of the Old Testament figure in plain words follows:
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered [there's your "penal"] for sins,
the just for the unjust [there's your "substitution"],
that he might bring us to God, being put to death ["penal"] in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Last edited:
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
If penal substitution is not true, neither is the atonement.
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
That's a mischaracterization of PSA. The cross is simultaneously an act of love from both the Father and the Son, yet also a display of God's hatred for sin, as well as His love for Justice. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
Did Christ die for all humanity, those to be saved and those never to be saved? Yes 2 Peter 2:1.
PSA is a Trojan horse for the false doctrine of Limited Atonement.
Why would Christ died for all humanity, if those to be saved was predetermined? He would not. Thus individual election for salvation before creation is false doctrine.
Did Christ's death on the cross result in the opportunity for reconciliation to humanity? Yes. But to receive the reconciliation a person's faith must be credited as righteous by God alone, thus salvation is monergistic because God chooses whose faith to credit or not, thus the dirty rag faith does not merit or earn salvation.
PSA is a Trojan horse for the false doctrine of Limited Atonement.
Why would Christ died for all humanity, if those to be saved was predetermined? He would not. Thus individual election for salvation before creation is false doctrine.
Did Christ's death on the cross result in the opportunity for reconciliation to humanity? Yes. But to receive the reconciliation a person's faith must be credited as righteous by God alone, thus salvation is monergistic because God chooses whose faith to credit or not, thus the dirty rag faith does not merit or earn salvation.
Is Love mandatory or voluntary, is it a gift or taken by force.
Was the Cross a supreme act of vengeance or a Supreme Act of Love.
Why be Penal gazers looking at a punisher God, any one of the pagan gods are punishers looking for retribution. How like man those vengeful gods are. How like Islam that Catholics defended against.
Yes God is Great, but first and above all He IS Love.
Love is Eternal Love is God, A CONSTANT ETERNAL WORK OF GOODNESS BEYOND HUMAN DESCRIPTION OR DEFINITION.
If you err on the side of God being Love, you err not knowing just how true you are.
So what is this god that that requires the hateful punishment and death of the innocent to be placated. Moloch? He would suit that.
Do not attribute vengefulness to The Eternal Father, it is profoundly wrongful.
Do not allow the corrupting vision of God in Islam back into Christendom.
The problem is that Penal Substitution Atonement Theory goes beyond what you are presenting.
Theories of Substitution, Ransom, Victorious, and even Moral excellent (or influence) all agree that Christ suffered, and that suffering brought personal benefits to believers. the Physical (penal) Suffering (substitution) of the Redeemer is not in dispute.
The PSA theory also maintains that the Suffering Saviour was being Punished by God, in some manner such punishment removed the wrath of God, and that the Father abandoned the Son because the Son became (took upon) Sin. Such is the demand by PSA from a legal standpoint in which the scales of Justice had to again not only be balanced but absolved.
The thinking of Ransom, Substitution, and Penal all have in them some payment made, some charge covered, some suffering transferred that humankind again have a legally correct arrangement with God.
PSA goes beyond and applies presentations in which God abuses his own Son, in which if taken literally makes for universal atonement, which requires some manner of just payment made to the enemy of Christ, and ultimately breaks down the unity of the trinity by one member being cut off and abandoned.
Put two lawyers together with a child traumatized troubled philosopher and what do you get? Thinking that someone must pay to balance the scales.
is
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
The payment is made to God's law, not to the devil.
And yes, the scriptures are all too clear that God the Father treated the Son (in his humanity, so no, there is no breakdown of the trinity) as not only a sinner, but sin itself (2Co.5) to the point that Christ likened himself to a serpent on the cross (Jn.3).
It would be wonderful if believers would grasp that God never owed the Demonic world anything.
There was no “quid pro quo” made at the crucifixion.
The satanic world gained nothing from the work of Calvary.
Christ did not replace or substitute for humankind by His death and resurrection.
The sufferings of the crucifixion did not benefit the trinity.
Yet, contained in each of the statements above are the formative thinking of three theories of the atonement.
There was no “quid pro quo” made at the crucifixion.
The satanic world gained nothing from the work of Calvary.
Christ did not replace or substitute for humankind by His death and resurrection.
The sufferings of the crucifixion did not benefit the trinity.
Yet, contained in each of the statements above are the formative thinking of three theories of the atonement.
At no point does the Scriptures present that some payment would absolve God’s law.
The law is powerless to redeem. (Romans)
The law is not opposed to God. (Galatians)
The law points to Christ. (Romans)
Christ made no payment to the law.
Certainly, PSA theory does void the trinity, or Christ was not in hypostatic Union which makes the crucifixion void.
easiest answer is that is how Jesus and His Apostles saw the Atonement!
Mankind owes to God the obligation of being Sinners and law breakers, and someone must be judged and take the deserved Wrath and judgement to have God able to fully and freely Justify!
The truth of PSA. Is the biblical truth.
A study of the Covenant of Redemption, and the High Priestly work of the surety, and meditorial work of the Lord Jesus is clear to see.
All other ideas are false theories and speculation they deny the full and particular work.
These deficient ideas seek to explain away the words
A study of the Covenant of Redemption, and the High Priestly work of the surety, and meditorial work of the Lord Jesus is clear to see.
All other ideas are false theories and speculation they deny the full and particular work.
These deficient ideas seek to explain away the words
That atonement view best explains just how a Holy God is able to stay Holy and true to His very nature and still be able to freely justify lost sinners!
Not exactly.
Mankind is already condemned. They owe God nothing accept obedience and honor. That is what the law demanded.
That mankind will be blessed with wrath that is not appointed to the believers is because of the treatment of the ungodly toward the Godly.
Because the PSA, Substitution, and Late Ransom thinking come from the RC, the schooling and bent implanted into the reformers obliged them to consider some legal means of redemption. It just isn't consistent with the Scriptures in so many ways.
The "in our place" part is different.
I believe Christ suffered the "wages of sin", "bore our sin", was "stricken", and ,was made sin for us". I believe this "in our place".
But where I disagree with Penal Substitution Theory is I see this being "in our place" the same way Adam sinned "in our place" (as a representative).
Penal Substitution Theory defines "in our place" as "in our stead" or "as our substitute".
The difference may seem small but it changes Christ as sharing our infirmary to Christ experiencing our infirmary instead of us.
Not so, my friend.
The PSA comes about in agreement with some because they desire some legal binding. But that isn't the Scripture.
The law was not legally binding, but a school master directing the attention to Christ.
God had no legal binding to redeem anyone, but that which He presented through the prophets that the messiah might be recognized and seen as different then any others. For many were the claims of being the Christ, even in this day.
What was the motivation of God?
John 3:16
- Status