Penal Substitution Gospel

[JonC]

We do not agree on the penal substitution. You do not know.my view. And all I am hearing from you is disallowing the term.

Look....when I ask you how you define penal substitution you provide verses I completely agree with and even use to explain the atonement.

Apparently you define penal substitution differently from what you are willing to post but are unwilling to state your belief.

That is fine. Nobody has to account for their faith on this forum. But why post if you are unwilling or unable to state your belief?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

No. The basic doctrine of the Trinity is in the text of Scripture.

If you mean a more developed doctrine then I agree. They debated the use of persons and natures for some time.

But the foundational doctrine (God is One, the Father and Son are One, the Spirit is God's Spirit, and the Father, Son, and Spirit are not the same) is in the actual text of Scripture.

Of course the basic doctrine of the Trinity is in Scripture --just as the doctrine of penal substitution is.

I was focusing on the words. The word 'Trinity' is not in the text of the Bible, but is nevertheless found there. The words 'penal substitution' are not in the text of the Bible, but the doctrine certainly is.

 

[JonC]

Of course the basic doctrine of the Trinity is in Scripture --just as the doctrine of penal substitution is.

I was focusing on the words. The word 'Trinity' is not in the text of the Bible, but is nevertheless found there. The words 'penal substitution' are not in the text of the Bible, but the doctrine certainly is.

No. The doctrine of penal substitution is not in Scripture itself (nowhere is Christ said to have died instead of us, nowhere is Christ's death said to have been God's punishment, nowhere is Christ said to have experienced a punishment instead of us, nowhere is punishment said to be required for forgiveness).


I don't care that the words "penal substitution", "Trinity", "Bible", or, technically, "atonement" are not in the Bible.

What matters is doctrine. And penal substitution is not in the text of Scripture.

Look, we all have to decide our own criteria for doctrine.

When it comes to foundational doctrines, or doctrines upon which we build, my criteria is that it must be in the actual text of Scripture. That is the only way to test doctrine. Otherwise you are just testing what you think is taught by what you think is taught. I am a biblicist on this point.

You, on the other hand, are free to accept the teachings of other men, of what you think the Bible is teaching, or whatever.

I was saved believing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and believed it most of my life. I am grateful to have moved on, even though I was resistant at the time. But I do not judge others for their understanding.

 

[Alan Gross]

great reference for the Gospel vs not knowing the Gospel, or preaching some portion of it:

J. I. Packer’s Famous Essay on Christ’s Death

"The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church.

Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this isn’t primarily what it is trying to do.

"One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be “helpful” to man—to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction—and too little concerned to glorify God.

"The old gospel was “helpful,” too—more so, indeed, than is the new—but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God.

"It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace.

"Its center of reference was unambiguously God.

"But in the new gospel, the center of reference is man.

"This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not.

"Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better.

"The subject of the old gospel was God and his ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him.

"There is a world of difference.

"The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.

"The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church.

"From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interests of “helpfulness.”

"Accordingly, the themes of man’s natural inability to believe, of God’s free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for his sheep, are not preached.

"These doctrines, it would be said, are not “helpful”; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. (The possibility that such despair might be salutary is not considered; it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem.)

"However this may be (and we shall say more about it later), the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.

"Thus, we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time;

"we speak of his redeeming work as if he had done no more by dying than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing;

"we speak of God’s love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust;

"and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence “at the door of our hearts” for us to let them in.

"It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe.

"But it needs to be said with emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel.

"The Bible is against us when we preach in this way;

"and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we should review this matter.

"To recover the old, authentic, biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and practice back into line with it, is perhaps our most pressing present need.

"And it is at this point that Owen’s treatise on redemption can give us help."

THE ATONEMENT

The atonement is the central theme of Christianity. Everything that precedes it looks forward to it, and everything that follows looks backward to it. Its importance may be see reviewing the following facts.

1. THE ATONEMENT IS THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF CHRISTIANITY.

Christianity is the only religion with an atonement.

It is related that some years ago, when there was held a Parliament of Religion at the World's Fair in Chicago, Joseph Cook, of Boston, the chosen spokesman for Christianity, arose, after other religions had been presented, and said:

"Here is Lady Macbeth's hands, stained with the foul murder of King Duncan. See her as she perambulates through the halls and corridors of her palatial home, stopping to cry, 'Out damned spot! Out, I say! Will these hands ne'er be clean?"

The representative of Christianity turned to the advocates of other religions and triumphantly challenged:

"Can any of you who are so anxious to propagate your religious systems offer any cleansing efficacy for the sin and guilt of Lady Macbeth's crime?" They were speechless; for none of them had an atonement to offer.

2. THE ATONEMENT VINDICATES THE HOLINESS AND JUSTICE OF GOD

There could be no true holiness and justice in God if He allowed sin to go unpunished. Holiness forbids such an encouragement of sin. Justice demands retribution.

3. THE ATONEMENT ESTABLISHES GOD'S LAW

Without the atonement the salvation of believers would leave the law void, a dead letter. See Rom. 3:31 and Heb. 2:2.

4. THE ATONEMENT MANIFESTS THE GREATNESS OF HIS LOVE

In no other way could God have manifested greater love for His people than by giving His only begotten Son to die in their stead. See John 3:16; 15:3; Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:9.

5. THE ATONEMENT PROVES THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES

We see in Christ's atonement the beautiful antitype of Old Testament sacrifices.

And we see in these sacrifices an effective method of pointing to the necessity of atonement and such a picture of real atonement as would lead the spiritually enlightened to press through the veil of shadow to the true light.

The divine authority of Old Testament sacrifices presents no difficulties to him who believes that Christ's death was substitutionary.

But those who wish to deny this latter fact deny also that God instituted the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament.

6. THE ATONEMENT FURNISHES THE ACID TEST OF THE THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

By their attitude toward the atonement, theological systems classify themselves as pagan or Christian.

 

[Alan Gross]

(2 Cor. 5:21).

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus' soul, Isaiah 53:12.
In exchange for our soul, Ezekiel 18:4, Mark 10:45.

back to:
Substitutionary Atonement - The Gospel Coalition

There can be attempts to take the reality of sin and the death, burial, and resurrection, or just the first two parts, etc., etc. out of the Gospel, and the verses cited below, but the Gospel of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, is still the pure message of Christianity.

"We see substitutionary atonement in OT sacrifices, for their fundamental purpose is to obtain forgiveness of sins. People laid hands on the animal to signify that the animal functioned as a substitute for the person, and their sin was transferred to the animal.

"The violent death of the animal signifies the penalty human beings deserve for their sin. Thus, the death of the animal functions as a substitute for the worshiper.

"The substitutionary nature of the sacrifices is especially evident on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), the great day once a year when the sins of Israel were atoned for.

"We see in Leviticus 17:11 that atonement is secured through the shedding of blood, and the shedding of blood signifies violent death. Forgiveness only comes through the violent death of an animal, and the animal takes the penalty the worshiper deserved.

"Animal sacrifices do not and cannot finally atone for sin (Heb. 9:1–10:18), and such sacrifices point to the atoning death of Jesus Christ which secures complete and permanent forgiveness of sins.

"We see in Isaiah 53 that Jesus as the servant of the Lord suffered death in the place of sinners. “He himself bore our sicknesses, and he carried our pains” (Isa. 53:4).

"As the next verse says, “he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds” (Isa. 53:5).

"He died as a “guilt offering” in the place of sinners (53:10). In his death, “he bore the sin of many” (53:12).

"The Lord “was pleased to crush him” (53:10), and Jesus Christ as the Servant of the Lord suffered the wrath of God sinners deserved.

"Romans 3:21–26 is a central text on penal substitution. In the preceding section of the letter we see that all without exception are sinners deserving final judgment (Rom. 1:18–3:20).

"Paul affirms in Romans 3:21–22 that a right relationship with God cannot be obtained through keeping the law (since all sin; Rom. 3:23) but only through faith in Jesus Christ.

"How can God forgive sinners so that they stand in a right relationship with him?

"The answer is given in Romans 3:25–26, “God presented him as an atoning sacrifice in his blood, received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his restraint God passed over the sins previously committed.

"God presented him to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus.”

"The words translated “atoning sacrifice” has a more technical meaning and can be rendered as “propitiation” or “mercy seat” (hilastērion).

"The word propitiation signifies that God’s wrath has been satisfied or appeased in the cross of Christ.

"Such an idea fits well with the flow of thought in Romans, for we see in Romans 1:18 that “God wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people.”

"We are also told in Romans 2:5 that those who don’t repent and soften their hearts are “storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.”

"Romans 3:25–26 teaches us, then, that God’s righteousness, God’s holiness and justice, are satisfied in the death of Christ.

"In the cross of Christ, God is shown to be loving and holy, merciful and just, the “just and justifier” of those who put their faith in Jesus.

"God has not compromised his justice since Christ has borne the penalty deserved for sin, dying as a substitute in the place of sinners.

"We see the same truth in Galatians 3:10–13.

"No one can escape God’s curse by works of the law since all without exception sin.

"The solution to the evil of human beings is set forth in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”

"The curse every person deserves is removed for those who put their trust in Christ, because Christ took the curse we deserved upon himself.

"He took the penalty we deserved, fulfilling the words of Deuteronomy 21:23 that those who are hanged upon a tree are cursed.

"The same truth is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “[God] made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

"We have here the great exchange.

"Jesus took our sin by dying in our place, and we received his righteousness.

Nor is this teaching restricted to Paul. Jesus himself clearly teaches penal substitution in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

"We have an allusion here to Isaiah 53. Jesus as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 is also the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. In surrendering his life in death, he died as a ransom in place of many.

"His death constituted the payment demanded for the sins committed.

"The same teaching is also present in the Gospel of John: “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

"Jesus, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, whether it is the Passover Lamb, the lamb in the sacrificial system, or the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 (or even all three), dies as a sacrifice in the place of sinners.

"Penal substitutionary atonement is woven into the fabric of the NT.

"Peter, drawing on Isaiah 53, declares, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pet. 2:24).

"In the next chapter he declares, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God” (1 Pet. 3:18).

"Penal substitution captures the heart of the atonement, for we see in the atoning sacrifice of Christ both the love and justice of God.

"Nor should we pit the Father against the Son since the Son willingly and gladly gave of himself for the sake of sinners (John 10:18).

"As the Gospel of John emphasizes repeatedly, the Father sent the Son, but the Son rejoiced to do the Father’s will."

 

[Alan Gross]

1 Corinthians 15:3, ". . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; . . ."

1 Corinthians 15:4, ". . . And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . .,"

from: Jesus: The Perfect Burnt, Sin, and Guilt Offering

"The guilt offering in Leviticus 5:14-6:7 focuses on yet another aspect of sins effects, the need for payment. This offering is sometimes referred to as the reparation offering because it highlights the need for payment when wrong has been done. Forgiveness was dependent upon the worshiper making amends, and the sacrificial animal was viewed as a restitution. The idea is that it’s not just enough to be forgiven, we need to make things right.

"In the New Testament, Zacchaeus is a good example of this, paying back that which he had defrauded fourfold (Lk. 19:8). Jesus said, “So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First, be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Matt. 5:23-24) Sin often creates rifts between our brothers and sisters in Jesus, and as Christians, we’re called to make peace with one another and restore that which has been broken or lost.

"The debt we owe to God and those we have sinned against is greater than we can bear, therefore God sent his Son to be not only our perfect burnt, and sin offering; but also our perfect guilt offering.

"Isaiah the prophet said of Jesus,

“Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days…” (Isa. 53:10)

"The word used for “offering for guilt” is the exact same word used in Leviticus 5:15 to describe the compensation or guilt offering made by the ancient worshiper. Jesus paid our debt, and now we must forgive as we have been forgiven."

The Part the SON of God, the Second Person,
Has Taken in the Covenant.

"The Character in which Christ here addresses his divine Father, "My God", is a phrase expressive of covenant relation, and is frequently so used both with regard to Christ and his people. But, to observe no more, nothing more fully proves Christ's free and full assent and consent to do the will of his Father, proposed in covenant, than his actual performance of it.

"Was it his will that he should take the care and charge of all his elect, and lose none? he has done it (John 17:12).

"Was it his will that he should assume human nature? the Word has been made flesh, and dwelt among men (John 1:14).

"Was it his will that he should obey the law? he is become the end of the law for righteousness (Romans 10:4).

"Was it his will that he should suffer death, the penalty of it? he has suffered, the just for the unjust, to bring them to God (1 Peter 3:18).

"Was it his will that he should make himself an offering for sin? he has given himself to God, an Offering and a Sacrifice, of a sweet-smelling savor (Ephesians 5:2).

"In a word, Was it his will that he should redeem his people from all their iniquities? Yes, he has obtained an eternal redemption of them (Hebrews 9:12).

 

[Alan Gross]

forsaken

"And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads," Matthew 27:39.

ל

Lamentations 1:12; "Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?
behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow,
which is done unto me,
wherewith the LORD hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary.

"The pathetic appeal of Jerusalem, not only to her neighbors
but even to the strangers "passing by,"
as her sorrow is such as should excite the compassion
even of those unconnected with her.

"She here prefigures Christ,
whom the language is prophetically made to suit, more than Jerusalem."

"the LORD hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger"

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary.

Lamentations 3:1

"I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of his wrath."

CHAPTER (ELEGY) 3

La 3:1-66.

"Jeremiah proposes his own experience under afflictions, as an example as to how the Jews should behave under theirs, so as to have hope of a restoration; hence the change from singular to plural (La 3:22, 40-47). The stanzas consist of three lines, each of which begins with the same Hebrew letter.

"Aleph.

"1-3. seen affliction—his own in the dungeon of Malchiah (Jer 38:6); that of his countrymen also in the siege. Both were types of that of Christ."

New thread: "The LORD hath Afflicted Me in the Day of His Fierce Anger", "by the Rod of His Wrath."

 

[Arthur King]

Personally I am persuaded that Penal Substitution is the first half of the gospel.

1 Corinthians 15:3, ". . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; . . ."

Substitutionary Atonement - The Gospel Coalition

Penal Substitution in the Early Church

3 Reasons I Changed My Mind About Penal Substitution

"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures"


"For" must be understood in conjunction with "with". This means that "instead of" is excluded. I can go to the grocery store "with" and "for" my wife at the same time, but not "with" and "instead of" my wife.

So Jesus can die "with" and "for" us, but not "instead of" us.

"I have been co-crucified with Christ."

"We are baptized with Christ into his death."

"Take up your cross and follow me."

"You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with my baptism."

All of these verses exclude that Jesus died "instead of" us as our substitute.

 

[Arthur King]

from: Jesus: The Perfect Burnt, Sin, and Guilt Offering

"The guilt offering in Leviticus 5:14-6:7 focuses on yet another aspect of sins effects, the need for payment. This offering is sometimes referred to as the reparation offering because it highlights the need for payment when wrong has been done. Forgiveness was dependent upon the worshiper making amends, and the sacrificial animal was viewed as a restitution. The idea is that it’s not just enough to be forgiven, we need to make things right.

"In the New Testament, Zacchaeus is a good example of this, paying back that which he had defrauded fourfold (Lk. 19:8). Jesus said, “So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First, be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Matt. 5:23-24) Sin often creates rifts between our brothers and sisters in Jesus, and as Christians, we’re called to make peace with one another and restore that which has been broken or lost.

"The debt we owe to God and those we have sinned against is greater than we can bear, therefore God sent his Son to be not only our perfect burnt, and sin offering; but also our perfect guilt offering.

"Isaiah the prophet said of Jesus,

“Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days…” (Isa. 53:10)

"The word used for “offering for guilt” is the exact same word used in Leviticus 5:15 to describe the compensation or guilt offering made by the ancient worshiper. Jesus paid our debt, and now we must forgive as we have been forgiven."

The Part the SON of God, the Second Person,
Has Taken in the Covenant.

"The Character in which Christ here addresses his divine Father, "My God", is a phrase expressive of covenant relation, and is frequently so used both with regard to Christ and his people. But, to observe no more, nothing more fully proves Christ's free and full assent and consent to do the will of his Father, proposed in covenant, than his actual performance of it.

"Was it his will that he should take the care and charge of all his elect, and lose none? he has done it (John 17:12).

"Was it his will that he should assume human nature? the Word has been made flesh, and dwelt among men (John 1:14).

"Was it his will that he should obey the law? he is become the end of the law for righteousness (Romans 10:4).

"Was it his will that he should suffer death, the penalty of it? he has suffered, the just for the unjust, to bring them to God (1 Peter 3:18).

"Was it his will that he should make himself an offering for sin? he has given himself to God, an Offering and a Sacrifice, of a sweet-smelling savor (Ephesians 5:2).

"In a word, Was it his will that he should redeem his people from all their iniquities? Yes, he has obtained an eternal redemption of them (Hebrews 9:12).

You are confusing payment and punishment. I have pointed this out so many times it is getting exhausting. But people just keep posting the same confusion over and over and over again.

When I buy a cup of coffee, I am not punished $1.50. Similarly, if a friend pays my debt, they are not “punished” in my place. There is a profound difference between my friend paying my debt of $1,000 and going to the electric chair instead of me. What Jesus does on the cross is equivalent to paying a debt for us, by paying our debt of love and obedience to God. Jesus is not “paying a debt of punishment” in our place.

If my daughter's murderer goes to jail, that does absolutely nothing to pay for what I lost: my daughter. Do you see this? Do you understand? Is this clear? Retribution does not make restitution. Punishing the murderer does zero to restore back to me the thing I lost.

This is not to say we should not punish. We should. It is to say that punishment does not accomplish payment. And penal substitution relies on the false notion that it does. Do you see that? Yes or no?

 

[kyredneck]

You are confusing payment and punishment. I have pointed this out so many times it is getting exhausting. But people just keep posting the same confusion over and over and over again.

It's 'herd mentality', common here on the BB. I think you're giving good illustrations, give it time.

 

[Alan Gross]

We do not agree on the penal substitution. You do not know.my view. And all I am hearing from you is disallowing the term.

Some entirely don't know what it is (?) or attempt with every effort to 'disallow' the term, meaning, and power of "the Gospel"

Evil is in utter opposition to the Gospel at every turn
and opposing the Gospel is very evil.

Why would evil be opposed to it?

"In whom ye also trusted,
after that ye heard the word of truth,
the gospel of your salvation:

in whom also after that ye believed,
ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,"
Ephesians 1:13.

There can be attempts to take the reality of sin and the death, burial, and resurrection, or just the first two parts, etc., etc. out of the Gospel, and the verses cited below, but the Gospel of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, is still the pure message of Christianity.

Your first step 37 in dividing the Bible, wrongly, is to follow this type of command; that a scripture;

must be understood

so and so, different than it is written.
...

payment and punishment

For the uninitiated, there was a payment and a punishment.

I think you're giving good illustrations, give it time.

Here's an 'illustration' for you, KY.

It's called (the first of 3 parts of) "the Gospel".

"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures"

You just leave it be, right where it is, the way it is, and it's "the Gospel", as illustrated in "the Word of God";

1 "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,

how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 "And that he was buried,

and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"


Since, "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation" that the Holy Spirit uses when it is preached as the means to save souls, it is vitality important to learn what the Bible says the Gospel is, and to believe it to acquire salvation, first, then to preach that to the lost, just way it is without editing and rewriting the Bible, in an attempt to nullify; make ineffective and otherwise negate God's message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, He has revealed.

Unless, you want to be nothing but confused.

Listen to, read, and use the Bible.

Like God said of Jesus, "hear ye Him", and not a stranger.

 

[Arthur King]

Some entirely don't know what it is (?) or attempt with every effort to 'disallow' the term, meaning, and power of "the Gospel"

Evil is in utter opposition to the Gospel at every turn
and opposing the Gospel is very evil.

Why would evil be opposed to it?

"In whom ye also trusted,
after that ye heard the word of truth,
the gospel of your salvation:

in whom also after that ye believed,
ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,"
Ephesians 1:13.




Your first step 37 in dividing the Bible, wrongly, is to follow this type of command; that a scripture;



so and so, different than it is written.
...



For the uninitiated, there was a payment and a punishment.



Here's an 'illustration' for you, KY.

It's called (the first of 3 parts of) "the Gospel".



You just leave it be, right where it is, the way it is, and it's "the Gospel", as illustrated in "the Word of God";

1 "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,

how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 "And that he was buried,

and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"


Since, "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation" that the Holy Spirit uses when it is preached as the means to save souls, it is vitality important to learn what the Bible says the Gospel is, and to believe it to acquire salvation, first, then to preach that to the lost, just way it is without editing and rewriting the Bible, in an attempt to nullify; make ineffective and otherwise negate God's message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, He has revealed.

Unless, you want to be nothing but confused.

Listen to, read, and use the Bible.

Like God said of Jesus, "hear ye Him", and not a stranger.

Friend, I am so sorry but I cannot follow your response. It is just too scattered and all over the place. I cannot follow the point and counterpoint of what you are saying in response to what I am saying.

Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between payment and punishment? Yes or no?
Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between restitution and retribution? Yes or no?
Do you see that punishment does not accomplish payment? That jail time for someone who owes me 1 million dollars will not pay me my the million dollars? Yes or no?

 

[Van]

Yet another thread on the topic of Penal Substitution without defining the term. PSA is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, as PSA is defined as Christ dying for the specific sins of specific individuals elected before creation.

You will find that no one has defined the term, which is unusual for a so-called gospel presentation.

What if Christ suffered the penalty for sin in general, i.e. the wages of sin is death, so that He became the means of reconciliation for all humanity, whoever God transfers spiritually into Him?

What if our sins are removed, not when Christ died, but when we undergo the washing of regeneration, when we are born anew?

What if the actual dispute concerning penal substitution was discussed, rather than an avalanche of verbiage posted without illumination?

 

[Arthur King]

Yet another thread on the topic of Penal Substitution without defining the term. PSA is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, as PSA is defined as Christ dying for the specific sins of specific individuals elected before creation.

You will find that no one has defined the term, which is unusual for a so-called gospel presentation.

What if Christ suffered the penalty for sin in general, i.e. the wages of sin is death, so that He became the means of reconciliation for all humanity, whoever God transfers spiritually into Him?

What if our sins are removed, not when Christ died, but when we undergo the washing of regeneration, when we are born anew?

What if the actual dispute concerning penal substitution was discussed, rather than an avalanche of verbiage posted without illumination?

I have defined it. See:

Isaiah 53 doesn't support penal substitution

And

Debates among penal substitution advocates

 

[Van]

The Oil Lease illustration. Say a very rich and powerful person bought an oil lease on the world, giving Him the right to extract any of the oil He wanted, but also the right to leave oil in the ground, doomed to an eternity in darkness. Therefore He would have bought the oil to be extracted and the oil never to be extracted, just as the Master of 2 Peter 2:1 bought those to be saved and those never to be saved.

 

[Van]

I have defined it. SNIP

From the link:

"In sum, penal substitution requires at least two things (1) that Jesus’ death is just, or deserved, that is, to satisfy the wrath of God, to satisfy the retributive demands of God’s justice, and (2) that Jesus dies in our place, as our substitute, taking the punishment upon himself so we won't have to suffer it."​

Does this say who is in view in the phrase "Jesus died in "our" place." How about Jesus died for humanity's sin, those to be saved and those never to be saved?

I did not see where Arthur King provided or endorsed a definition in the second link.

 

[kyredneck]

Here's an 'illustration' for you, KY.

It's called (the first of 3 parts of) "the Gospel".

You act as if he's denied the deity of Christ.

 

[37818]

. . . suffered God's punishment . . . .

Meaning what?

From what you posted we seem to agree.

I agree with what you have provided when I requested for you to define your view. I certainly agree with the passages you offer.

Where do we disagree?

On the usage of the terminology "penal Substitution" describe what Christ did to bear our sin.

 

[JonC]

Meaning what?

On the usage of the terminology "penal Substitution" describe what Christ did to bear our sin.

I agree that Christ bore our sin.

By penal substitution most mean that Christ took God's punishment for our sins instead of us. Obviously you do not hold that view as you define "penal substitution" as those verses you provided.

My point was that those verses don't describe a penal type of substitution, and that is why I mistook you as holding what is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement in Theology.

I think most, at least most who have studied theology (different theological positions), would assume by "penal substitution" that you mean the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, so they may not get the difference.

I appreciate your clarification.

 

[JonC]

You act as if he's denied the deity of Christ.

Yep. To some there were no real Christians until the Reformation.