Featured Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

I was thinking the exact same thing .

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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).