Penal Substitution - Did Jesus Experience Our Punishment?

[Martin Marprelate]

'He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!'

That quotation is one from of the very earliest Christian documents. It declares that Christ died in the place of transgressors, the wicked, the unrighteous, the corruptible. I am all those things, therefore I can say with confidence that He died in my place to take away my sins (Romans 5:6).

Died He for me who cause His pain?
For me who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shoulds't die for me.

No one is going to take such a blessed doctrine from me!

 

[kyredneck]

I was reincarnated.

I couldn't get into my old account, so I started a new one. You know me.

It's good to see you back. I benefitted from and thoroughly enjoyed you and GT with your 'Born Of Water' thread a while back, perhaps I'll pick up something here.

I've paid very little attention to the various atonement theories in the past. I've always been content with the knowledge that He has purchased me and I now belong to Him:

44 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a merchant seeking goodly pearls:
46 and having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold all that he had, and bought it. Mt 13

28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. Acts 20

9 And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, Rev 5

Which 'theory' does the notion that I've been 'bought and paid for' fall under?

 

[JonC]

'He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!'

That quotation is one from of the very earliest Christian documents. It declares that Christ died in the place of transgressors, the wicked, the unrighteous, the corruptible. I am all those things, therefore I can say with confidence that He died in my place to take away my sins (Romans 5:6).

Died He for me who cause His pain?
For me who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shoulds't die for me.

Brother, sorry I'm so late in replying (I try to be prompt, but my son had short a deer as I was typing so things got busy).

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and determining that you don’t read carefully instead of determining that you are intentionally and dishonestly misleading this thread (or you are just following the ideas of someone else written in a book). As a brother, I don’t mind extending to you that benefit because I have no reason to think you are intentionally misleading. That said, it would serve you well to read what has been posted instead of responding as you have.

I have stated, over and over (and over and over and over) again, to you on this thread, that there is a sense of substitutionary atonement throughout Church history. The quote you provide is a good example. It is from the second century, and by an unknown author. It is written to Diognetus, who was a tutor to Marcus Aurelius. The author is unknown (some ascribe it to Justin Martyr) and it is good evidence of a substitutionary aspect within the early church.

“But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal” (Epistle to Diognetus, Ch. 9).

Do you see where the author speaks of penal substitution? Of course you don’t because it is not there. If it is written by Justin Martyr, his teaching actually deny the possibility of penal substitution. He taught that Christ was punished for us, in our stead. But not that he was punished “instead” of us in terms of receiving our punishment. Again, no one is denying substitutionary atonement. But the notion that Jesus took our actual punishment is absent. Your quote is NOT penal substitution (although it does show substitution).

It is dishonest to say that the pre-Reformation presence of substitutionary aspects of the atonement equates to undeveloped penal substitution theory that was just put together in the sixteenth century. We know that they held a view of exactly what this "wrath" was, and none of them considered it our punishment.

Here are a few questions to ponder:

Do you believe that God forgives sins (that God canceled our debt)? Not if you believe in penal substitution, because if you do then you believe that divine justice demanded the debt be paid. God can't just forgive it. He first demands payment, receives payment, and then "forgives" the debt. This is not forgiveness. We are told to forgive as we are forgiven....is that how you want to be forgiven? Is that how you forgive?

The judgment for sin is the second death. It is appointed men once to die and then the judgment. The second death is a spiritual death. It is a future judgment where death and Hades is cast into Hell. If you believe in penal substitution then is is the punishment that Jesus took upon himself. How do you justify Jesus dying spiritually? How exactly is Jesus cast into Hell, and how long was this everlasting punishment?

Spiritual death is a separation from God, at lest in spirit and nature. When Jesus experienced this spiritual death on the cross as our punishment, for how long was he no longer God? How can Jesus actually be "spiritually dead" when the Bible says that he IS life? How can Scripture not be broken if all of those verses that speak of God's nature somehow don't apply to Jesus?

If penal substitutionary atonement is correct, then why is there not even one verse that affirms Jesus as experiencing our actual punishment? Why does the Bible stick to the sacrifice system (to include substitutionary atonement) that you so strongly deny? Why did the church stick with this same system (even through its disagreements over the atonement) until the sixteenth century? Why should we accept the Reformed judicial system over and above the context that Scripture provides for us in understanding the atonement?

No one is going to take such a blessed doctrine from me!

I have a RCC friend who feels the same about his tradition. I am not trying to take anything away from you, but like my conversation with this friend I am only asking you to consider Scripture. I also, BTW, affirm the lyrics of that song. No one is saying that Jesus did not die for us. I know he died for me, and in my place, and he bore my sins.

 

[JonC]

It's good to see you back. I benefitted from and thoroughly enjoyed you and GT with your 'Born Of Water' thread a while back, perhaps I'll pick up something here.

I've paid very little attention to the various atonement theories in the past. I've always been content with the knowledge that He has purchased me and I now belong to Him:

44 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a merchant seeking goodly pearls:
46 and having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold all that he had, and bought it. Mt 13

28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. Acts 20

9 And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, Rev 5

Which 'theory' does the notion that I've been 'bought and paid for' fall under?

Hey brother! It is good to be back. I needed a break, not necessarily because of anyone here but I had lost a good friend and was losing patience here. I was afraid of becoming antagonistic towards some of my brothers and didn’t want to become the “problem.” But it is good to be back – I missed the insight you often provided when I was airing out my thoughts.

To answer your question, all of the main theories view you and I as “bought and paid for.” The early church believed that we were bought and paid for in terms of Jesus being offered a ransom or guilt offering. Throughout history the Church has affirmed that Jesus bought us with his precious blood, we are not our own for we are bought with a price. They also hold to a substitution view of the atonement in at least some form. But all of the views have Jesus suffering as an atonement for our sins, not in payment of our sins.

What this means is that for fifteen centuries the Church affirmed our future judgment averted in Christ (not that Jesus died spiritually), the literal forgiveness of God (not that God only forgives a debt upon payment in full), etc.

I am only saying that since the Bible does not affirm penal substitution theory in terms of Jesus taking our actual punishment then perhaps we could look at it in a more traditional and literal way. Just see how things turn out. I have come to understand that Doctrines of Grace are in no way dependent on penal substitution, but they are corrupted by that view. Many of those things that we have left to "mystery" are pretty much explained if we take Scripture literally and allow it to form the context of our theology.

Anyway, it is good to dialogue with you again and I hope that all has been well with you.

 

[kyredneck]

my son had short a deer

Lol, what happened? Did he lose one?

Do you all dress and butcher your own deer? We've never taken one to the processers, we do it ourselves.

 

[JonC]

Lol, what happened? Did he lose one?

Do you all dress and butcher your own deer? We've never taken one to the processers, we do it ourselves.

No, he got it. This was his first (a doe). I had stepped out of the blind to reply to this thread when he shot the thing.

I have them processed. Other then field dressing them, I am clueless about butchering. I need to learn. Got a buck the weekend before Thanksgiving and with this one I'm out $165 for processing. I can afford to hunt but I can't afford to get anything :-(.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyredneck]

Other then field dressing them, I am clueless about butchering. I need to learn.

It's easy peasy, you need 3-4 ice chests, knives, freezer paper, tape, and a sawzall (indispensable IMO). You've already done the worst of it with the field dressing. Hang them by the neck, pull the skin off, and quarter it up - two hams, two shoulders, two back straps, two inside loins, two rib cages (if you fool with them), and neck meat if you're going to grind any meat up. Store in the coolers and keep icing the meat down and draining off the water until you work through it all with boning knives and freezer paper; I've taken as long as two weeks to put two deer in the freezer this way, the repeated icing and draining greatly improves the flavor of the meat, and you get to cut it up the way you want to. Trust me, it ain't rocket science.

 

[agedman]

From penal substitution to cutting up a deer.

This has got to be the sharpest turn a thread has taken that I have ever seen on the BB.

I gave up hunting long, long ago. It was cheaper to go to the market.

 

[JonC]

From penal substitution to cutting up a deer.

This has got to be the sharpest turn a thread has taken that I have ever seen on the BB.

I gave up hunting long, long ago. It was cheaper to go to the market.

Well.....I still insist the OT sacrificial system foreshadowed the Atonement and speaks to its meaning more than the 16th century concept of justice. In the OT system they sacrificed a lamb. I got a deer. Kinda the same except the animal type, how I got it, what I am going to do with it,,,, and I'm not Jewish. But other than that we're kinda similar. So I see just as much a natural progression in this dialogue as I do in claiming Justin Martyr or an early church father holding a penal substitution view. [emoji3][emoji28]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyredneck]

....and all those good fresh bones. If you have dogs save a few in the freezer for them too, they'll love you for it...

 

[kyredneck]

And no doubt all the atonement views each have their own merits, kinda like looking into different facets of a multi-faceted gem.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and determining that you don’t read carefully instead of determining that you are intentionally and dishonestly misleading this thread

You seem to be getting a little upset, so I will keep this brief.

Do you believe that God forgives sins (that God cancelled our debt)? Not if you believe in penal substitution, because if you do then you believe that divine justice demanded the debt be paid.

Of course God cannot just forgive sins. If He could there would be no need for Christ to die. We must forgive one another firstly because we are all sinners together and by nature the best of us is scarcely better than the worst, and secondly because we have received Divine mercy. But God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). He is holy and separate from sinners, and He is righteous and must punish sin. 'But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly' (Rom. 5:8; cf. Jer. 31:3).

If it is written by Justin Martyr, his teaching actually deny [sic] the possibility of penal substitution.

Ah yes! Justin Martyr. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Trypho remarks, "But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear indeed that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law."

Justin replies variously, first insisting that Christ was not cursed for His own sins, and then showing that God's curse rests upon the whole human race, Jew and Gentile. "For it is written in the law of Moses, 'Cursed is everyone that does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' And no one has accurately done all, nor will you deny this.......But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all its requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes?"

Then Justin explains that the reason why Jesus was crucified is that the curse which rested on us for our sin was transferred to Him. "If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?"

"This is a clear statement of Penal Substitution. Although Christ was innocent, He bore the curse due to sinful humanity, enduring in His death the punishment due to us. Justin is a very early example of a writer who explained the doctrine on the basis of the 'curse' vocabulary of Gal. 3:13 and Deut. 21:23. As we shall see, Eusebius of Caesarea and Hilary of Poitiers are among a number of later theologians who also took this approach" (Ovey, Jeffrey and Sach).

Finally, I believe the Biblical foundation for Penal Substitution is robust, and I shall show this elsewhere. I think it will be as well if I finish on this thread unless there is something on which you particularly want me to expand.

 

[JonC]

It's easy peasy, you need 3-4 ice chests, knives, freezer paper, tape, and a sawzall (indispensable IMO). You've already done the worst of it with the field dressing. Hang them by the neck, pull the skin off, and quarter it up - two hams, two shoulders, two back straps, two inside loins, two rib cages (if you fool with them), and neck meat if you're going to grind any meat up. Store in the coolers and keep icing the meat down and draining off the water until you work through it all with boning knives and freezer paper; I've taken as long as two weeks to put two deer in the freezer this way, the repeated icing and draining greatly improves the flavor of the meat, and you get to cut it up the way you want to. Trust me, it ain't rocket science.

Thanks for the info. I will try this the next time. I don’t have a grinder but I already have a bunch of sausage and ground venison processing.

Can you smoke the ham in a smoker like you would pork for BBQ?

 

[JonC]

You seem to be getting a little upset, so I will keep this brief.........Of course God cannot just forgive sins. If He could there would be no need for Christ to die. .

I was stressing the fact that you keep on arguing for penal substitution theory with substitution examples. I apologize if my "tone?" led you to believe I’m getting upset. I'm not. We don't even know each other...do we....mom? that you?

You think that Christ died just to forgive our sins? It is one thing to say that God uses Jesus and the cross within the plan of redemption and another to say that God is bound to doing so, in some mechanical, forensic fashion in order to forgive. I do not mean this harshly, I mean it in love, but what you have done here is reduced the gospel to the benefits of Jesus’ death and resurrection for salvation from sin. In substitutionary atonement you have found a lovely tree. But you seem so fixated on that tree that you do not seem to realize you are standing in the most glorious forest beyond anything ever conceived by man. The Atonement is much more than “forgiveness of sin” and much more than “appeasement of God’s wrath.” In fact, if Paul is right then those aspects of atonement are not even primary to the event of the cross.

Then Justin explains that the reason why Jesus was crucified is that the curse which rested on us for our sin was transferred to Him....
"This is a clear statement of Penal Substitution. Although Christ was innocent, He bore the curse due to sinful humanity, enduring in His death the punishment due to us. Justin is a very early example of a writer who explained the doctrine on the basis of the 'curse' vocabulary of Gal. 3:13 and Deut. 21:23. As we shall see, Eusebius of Caesarea and Hilary of Poitiers are among a number of later theologians who also took this approach"

OK... Dialogue with Trypho. You should have examined the whole.

“For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practise piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of yo , and recognise Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him?

For the statement in the law, 'Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to you, who do not know that this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God and King, and Christ. And you clearly see that this has come to pass. For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called from Him Christians; and other nations effectively carry out the curse, putting to death those who simply confess themselves to be Christians; to all of whom we say, You are our brethren; rather recognize the truth of God. And while neither they nor you are persuaded by us, but strive earnestly to cause us to deny the name of Christ, we choose rather and submit to death, in the full assurance that all the good which God has promised through Christ He will reward us with. And in addition to all this we pray for you, that Christ may have mercy upon you. For He taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying, 'Love your enemies; be kind and merciful, as your heavenly Father is.' For we see that the Almighty God is kind and merciful, causing His sun to rise on the unthankful and on the righteous, and sending rain on the holy and on the wicked; all of whom He has taught us He will judge.”

This is not penal substitution theory. This is what I am speaking of when I say some will deliberately mislead others to "prove" their point (not you, but the authors of the book).

I believe the Biblical foundation for Penal Substitution is robust, and I shall show this elsewhere. I think it will be as well if I finish on this thread unless there is something on which you particularly want me to expand

I look forward to it. If you prove me wrong will be neither first nor last to accomplish such a minor feat.

If you will, please expound on the difference between substitution theory and penal substitution theory. Many of your examples are what I would call substitution theory, not penal substitution. Thanks.

I look forward to walking through this with you. You may very well prove me wrong and I'd be thankful for the correction. Iron sharpens iron.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

Hello JonC

Not sure I can help too much, but this might;

http://reformationtheology.com/2006/08/is_penal_substitution_biblical.php

Hey Icon – it’s been awhile.
I’m going to butt in a moment because this is exactly what I was speaking of.

It is a good study....many divergent ideas..

No, actually being bought with a price does not suggest a payment was in fact due.

not sure you are not doing what you suggest I am doing...lol

This was one thing that stood out when looking at pre-Reformation atonement theories. The ransom theory in general viewed a purchase but not an object to receive payment. Some held a more specific view, a purchase from Satan, or death, or God.

The link I offered mentions these briefly....I never thought any of them made any sense.

Again, you have left scripture behind and ventured into explanation. You are examining the issue within a sixteenth century worldview, not a biblical one

I did not have time for anything detailed yesterday.
Generally I do not think we need to reinvent the wheel.
I believe the reformers were used to get us back to Apostolic teaching.

. The rest of the post continues in this mode. “Everyone limits the atonement” is a false statement because everyone does not use the judicial system motif to understand the atonement.

everyone limits the atonement.......is a fact.

Many use the OT sacrificial system and view it as foreshadowing our redemption.

That which was done in type and shadow is not always an exact illustration, not always a one to one match.

The scope of the atonement is primarily a discussion between Reformed kindred – Calvinists and Arminianians

.

I do not agree with this premise. I view it differently.

In reality, the scope of the atonement does not have anything to do with men.

This seems to me to be dead wrong. I think it might be you abandoning scripture here.
JonC......it is possible I do not understand what you are seeking here.

Biblically, it is the Father offering the Son as a guilt offering for humanity,

This is biblically a false statement....before going into detail, it seems fatally flawed.

and the Son laying down his own life and bearing sin in the flesh for humanity.

sorry again....this general language is not biblical in so many ways.

It isn’t “God atoned for these sins, or these people, and not these sins or these people.” That misses the who meaning of atonement.

Have you ever wondered why you cannot say that God forgives men in the normal sense of the word? You can say that divine justice has to be satisfied, so on the cross God demanded payment in full for those being saved, and Jesus paid that debt in full. Then and only then, with payment received, did God forgive our debt. Yet the meaning of forgiveness is to pardon a debt, to dismiss what is legitimately owed. This is not what God does within the Reformed scheme.

I think of it totally different so I am not sure my thoughts will be helpful to you.

Have you ever noticed the hoops that are there when you start defending the idea that Jesus suffered our punishment for our sin? Our punishment is the spiritual death, the second death (the future judgment when death and Hades is cast into Hell). You, however, say that this is what Jesus suffered. He died spiritually. Separated from God. But all of scripture cries out against this….Jesus is God. What the Bible says about the nature of God it says about Jesus. Here’s where most just cry out “mystery!” But it’s no mystery. You’ve ripped out the atonement, brought it into a sixteenth century worldview, and worked out a theology around it.

No....there is a reason the theology is agreed upon. The scriptures are the reason.
I get the feeling you are looking for some narrow and neat statement that will solve the puzzle. I do not believe the solution is found that way.

There is not one verse or one theological term that says it all.
Like many spokes on a wheel many things make up the terms of the substitutionary atonement.

Covenant
Mediator
Surety
High Priest
Sacrifice
Elect Servant
Elect Sheep
Expiation
Propitiation
Reconciliation
All are bound together

I don’t know if agedman takes this to be a blank slate, and I don’t intend to speak for him. But his statement is correct and does not mean a blank slate at all. The doctrines of grace are more intact within scripture than they are within the false dichotomy between God the Father and God the Son that the Reformation created

.
Not sure what you mean.

Agedman and I may disagree here, but all have been given such light (John is very clear on that point).

this is not so clear as you might think

But all reject Christ because we are fallen men. God, however, draws some to himself. For my part, while I reject TULIP I do affirm the Five Points of Calvinism (as expressed at the Synod of Dort) so we do have quite a bit in common. But your conclusion here is not out of scripture but your own presuppositions and what you theology has read into scripture.

I believe it is all from scripture.

You will find nowhere in the Bible a passage stating that Jesus experienced our punishment for our individual Sin/sins on the cross. You can’t say that it is “implied” because it is also absent from church doctrine for centuries.

As I said earlier....you are looking for a magic bullet. An examination of all the verses yields the truth.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is not penal substitution theory.

Well to me it is Penal Substitution, and I do not see that your additions to the text I quoted change that. I am happy to let other readers make up their own minds.

You highlighted this:

For the statement in the law, 'Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to you

I don't know what would make you think that anyone thinks Christ is cursed by God. He suffers as our substitute; He suffers the curse on our behalf.

Do read the link that Iconoclast posted. Failing that, read Stott's The Cross, J.I. Packer's Knowing God or, best of all IMHO, The Satisfaction of Christ by A.W. Pink (freely available on line). Or just about any of the Puritans except Baxter.

That's all I'm going to add. I have a ton of work to do today.

 

[JonC]

Well to me it is Penal Substitution, and I do not see that your additions to the text I quoted change that. I am happy to let other readers make up their own minds.

You highlighted this:

I don't know what would make you think that anyone thinks Christ is cursed by God. He suffers as our substitute; He suffers the curse on our behalf.

Do read the link that Iconoclast posted. Failing that, read Stott's The Cross, J.I. Packer's Knowing God or, best of all IMHO, The Satisfaction of Christ by A.W. Pink (freely available on line). Or just about any of the Puritans except Baxter.

That's all I'm going to add. I have a ton of work to do today.

I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. I can offer stuff like this:


"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica)

And I’m sure someone will say “see, that has penal substitution all over it.”

My point, brother, was not that God did not curse Jesus. My point was that in the entire quote there is ample evidence of substitution (and there is throughout history), but there is absolutely no mention of penal substitution. Do you not see the difference, brother?

 

[JonC]

JonC

Hello JonC

Not sure I can help too much, but this might;

http://reformationtheology.com/2006/08/is_penal_substitution_biblical.php




It is a good study....many divergent ideas..



not sure you are not doing what you suggest I am doing...lol


The link I offered mentions these briefly....I never thought any of them made any sense.


I did not have time for anything detailed yesterday.
Generally I do not think we need to reinvent the wheel.
I believe the reformers were used to get us back to Apostolic teaching.



everyone limits the atonement.......is a fact.



That which was done in type and shadow is not always an exact illustration, not always a one to one match.

.

I do not agree with this premise. I view it differently.



This seems to me to be dead wrong. I think it might be you abandoning scripture here.
JonC......it is possible I do not understand what you are seeking here.

This is biblically a false statement....before going into detail, it seems fatally flawed.


sorry again....this general language is not biblical in so many ways.


I think of it totally different so I am not sure my thoughts will be helpful to you.



No....there is a reason the theology is agreed upon. The scriptures are the reason.
I get the feeling you are looking for some narrow and neat statement that will solve the puzzle. I do not believe the solution is found that way.

There is not one verse or one theological term that says it all.
Like many spokes on a wheel many things make up the terms of the substitutionary atonement.

Covenant
Mediator
Surety
High Priest
Sacrifice
Elect Servant
Elect Sheep
Expiation
Propitiation
Reconciliation
All are bound together

.
Not sure what you mean.



this is not so clear as you might think



I believe it is all from scripture.



As I said earlier....you are looking for a magic bullet. An examination of all the verses yields the truth.

Thanks Icon.

I will read it when I can (probably tonight). Unlike you I am normally driving around town and can't read as if I were driving down an interstate because of all the red lights. Thumbsup

I do understand the systematic aspect of these theories. The missing link for me is the part where the Father punishes the Son with that wrath being our punishment for our Sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My point, brother, was not that God did not curse Jesus. My point was that in the entire quote there is ample evidence of substitution (and there is throughout history), but there is absolutely no mention of penal substitution. Do you not see the difference, brother?

Well why did you highlight that bit in red and not any other bit then? Why have me puzzling over what you meant by it, when you didn't mean anything in particular by it. That's two of us in the twilight zone.
If you can't see here:

"If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?"

Penal substitution expressed absolutely clearly, then we are talking right past each other. There is substitution- Christ suffers instead of us. And it is penal- He takes on our curse and is treated as if He were accursed. What can I say? 'None so blind as those who won't see.'

Quick definition of Penal Substitution: God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the curse, punishment and death due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

 

[JonC]

Well why did you highlight that bit in red and not any other bit then? Why have me puzzling over what you meant by it, when you didn't mean anything in particular by it. That's two of us in the twilight zone.
If you can't see here:

Penal substitution expressed absolutely clearly, then we are talking right past each other. There is substitution- Christ suffers instead of us. And it is penal- He takes on our curse and is treated as if He were accursed. What can I say? 'None so blind as those who won't see.'

Quick definition of Penal Substitution: God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the curse, punishment and death due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

I mistook your highlighted section suggest actual penal substitution, and I was pointing out that that was entirely out of context of what the author was saying. That's all.

Thank you for offering this definition. That helps me understand why we keep saying and seeing the same thing but coming short of agreement. Substitution is Christ suffering for us, in our place. Penal substitution is Christ taking our punishment. I know we are wondering why on earth each of us can't see the other's position. I do see substitution atonement throughout scripture and throughout history. And Scripture does say that Christ became a curse for us.

My question is where you find support for God actually punishing Jesus with our punishment (which would be the "second death")? This is what I can't find in the church until Calvin, and this is what I can't find in Scripture. Any help would be appreciated.