Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

[JonC]

I don't know if everyone uses the same terminology but do you know if that would be the "Recapitulation" theory from Irenaeus? Christ undoes the work of the first Adam and fulfills his commission representatively on our behalf?

No. It is different. There is no undoing what Adam did. But I do see Christ as our representative.

 

[JonC]

The Cross though meant that Jesus was to be seen as being under the very curse of God due to the manner of his death!

In Deuteronomy we are told that a man left hanging on a tree is considered cursed by God. But it dies not mean that person is actually cursed by God (Peter, for example, was not cursed by Hod because he was crucified....neither were the thousand of Christians who died in that manner). Isaiah explains this very well when he says that "we" esteemed Christ stricken by God but He was in fact saving us.

That said, I agree that those who crucified Christ believed He was a false messiah.

 

[JonC]

The father demands a death for breaking of His law and by sinning, and he also needs someone to bear the deserved and due wrath and condemnation for sinning

Scripture tells us the wages of sin. It is death. And Christ shared in that death so that we can share in His Life.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

There is nothing that I found in Scripture that Christ paid anyone for anything.

The Rev. shows the slain lamb taking the scroll from the hand of God. But there is no mention of God offering Him the Scroll.

Such is a display of not only the Authority of Christ, but that authority extends to all matters in heaven and earth.

I would like to know then what (in your view) the point of the cross was?

 

[JesusFan]

Scripture tells us the wages of sin. It is death. And Christ shared in that death so that we can share in His Life.

Jesus partoke of the wrath and judgement of the father for the sins that lost sinners have committed and are accountable to God for!

 

[JonC]

Jesus partoke of the wrath and judgement of the father for the sins that lost sinners have committed and are accountable to God for!

I understand that is what Penal Substitution Theory teaches. I believed, studied, and taught the Theory for decades. But it is not in the Bible.

 

[kyredneck]

easiest answer is that is how Jesus and His Apostles saw the Atonement!

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!

Jesus partoke of the wrath and judgement of the father for the sins that lost sinners have committed and are accountable to God for!

Jesus and the Apostles went went back to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, which is psa!

You any kin to @Yeshua1?

 

[JonC]

You any kin to @Yeshua1?

I was thinking the exact same thing .

 

[JonC]

I would like to know then what (in your view) the point of the cross was?

Scripture tells us the point of the cross. God was reconciling the world to Himself (as foretold in Genesis).

Penal Substitution Theory demands that Christ die, but the theory does not necessitate the Cross.

But early church theology actually necessitates the Cross. The reason is Christ needed to suffer not God's wrath but the wrath of the World. Christ did not step into God's "sin machine" but submitted Himself to the World's "sin machine" (the World's "justice").

This is why it was important for Christ not to be killed under the Law of God but instead to be handed over to die on a Roman cross, having been esteemed by His people as cursed by God.

 

[JonC]

We are saved by law keeping.
Not us keeping it.
Jesus kept it perfectly on behalf of the elect.
He died under the penalty of it....
Not just physical death but our spiritual death and alienation from God from our law breaking.
At the fall spiritual death and alienation took place that very instant with physical death to happen in the future.
In Christ the process is reversed.
We are given new hearts and and spiritual new birth,, with physical resurrection to happen in the future.

I disagree (which I am sure you guessed ). Our salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the Law. Christ did not die under the Law.

 

[37818]

It is not theory that, "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6. The penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

It is not theory that, "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6. The penal substitution.

No. That is certainly not a theory. All Christians believe that.

BUT that is not what we are talking about.

We are talking about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

[37818]

No. That is certainly not a theory. All Christians believe that.

BUT that is not what we are talking about.

We are talking about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

What is the difference between PSA and the theory?

 

[JonC]

What is the difference between PSA and the theory?

I think you pointed it out.

All Christians believe the LORD laid on Christ the iniquity of us all, it "pleased God to crush Him", Christ was "made sin for us", by His stripes we are healed, the chastisement of our peace was on Him, etc.

But Penal Substitution Theorists add human philosophy to Scripture. They believe God was wrathful to Christ, that God was punishing Jesus with the punishment for our sins instead of God punishing us, that God looked upon Christ as if He were a sinner, etc.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is not theory that, "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6. The penal substitution.

yep penal substitution right there clear cut

 

[JonC]

yep penal substitution right there clear cut

Perhaps you should study the theory a bit more.

Scripture does state that "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6. But all Christians believe that the Lord has laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. That is not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is just common Christian belief.

You can't just pull out parts of the theory that is in Scripture and claim the presence of Scripture in the theory proves the theory correct.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God punished Christ for our sins instead of punishing us (which is, of course, not found in Scripture).

 

[McCree79]

Perhaps you should study the theory a bit more.

Scripture does state that "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6. But all Christians believe that the Lord has laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. That is not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is just common Christian belief.

You can't just pull out parts of the theory that is in Scripture and claim the presence of Scripture in the theory proves the theory correct.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God punished Christ for our sins instead of punishing us (which is, of course, not found in Scripture).

"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" - 1 Peter 2:24

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Scripture tells us the point of the cross. God was reconciling the world to Himself (as foretold in Genesis).

Penal Substitution Theory demands that Christ die, but the theory does not necessitate the Cross.

But early church theology actually necessitates the Cross. The reason is Christ needed to suffer not God's wrath but the wrath of the World. Christ did not step into God's "sin machine" but submitted Himself to the World's "sin machine" (the World's "justice").

This is why it was important for Christ not to be killed under the Law of God but instead to be handed over to die on a Roman cross, having been esteemed by His people as cursed by God.

What is the world's wrath, and why did Christ have to suffer that?

And if that is the case the sin offering, peace offering, etc. are rendered rather incoherent in the OT.

 

[JonC]

"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" - 1 Peter 2:24

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Amen! This is one of my favorite passages.

But I'm not exactly sure why you are posting the passage in this thread.

These passages are not in dispute. All Christians, even those like me who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as a serious error, believe that 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 we were healed.

The thing about most errors is they are often 95% truth. It's the 5% that makes them wrong.

You and I agree on 95% of what Penal Substitution Theory contains. It's the 5%, the additions to Scripture, that makes it false.

 

[JonC]

What is the world's wrath, and why did Christ have to suffer that?

And if that is the case the sin offering, peace offering, etc. are rendered rather incoherent in the OT.

The World's wrath is the powers of sin and death, the principles, rulers, and powers that we were warned to guard against.

No. Tge sin and guilt offerings are definitely not rendered incoherent. The difference is how they are perceived (i.e., the difference between the Jewish leaders and the teachings of Christ).

The reason the sin offerings are not incoherent is they foreshadow Christ (they are not rules Christ had to follow but spoke of Christ and ate fulfilled in Him).

There is the "wrath to come" (which is the Judgment....which is Christ-centered).