Penal Substitution Gospel

[37818]

This does not explain the fact that your view, what you call "penal substitution", actually has nothing to do with penal substitution insofar as you have disclosed what you believe.

So you think.

 

[JonC]

No. His penal substitution was completed before He physically died for His resurrection.

But you have not expressed any actual penal substitution.

And you have not provided any actual support that Christ's death did not play a part in this atonement.

 

[JonC]

So you think.

Yes. What you have described is definitely not penal substitution.

You may hold beliefs you cannot articulate, but I can only go off what you have posted.

It is very unorthodox, but still interesting. Just not penal substitution.

 

[37818]

Deuteronomy 8:3, ". . . know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. . . ."

Some teachings occur only once. Some are repeated. Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4.

 

[JonC]

The events are chronological when they occur. But all the teachings of the written word are written to be didactic. And events which happened at the same time may be reported in a swapped order in two parallel accounts. So chronological may not be there for didactic purposes.

Well.... chronological order was also not important (unless it was to explain what had occurred). We like to read Scripture as if it were written like a reporter reporting events today. But that's us.

 

[JonC]

Deuteronomy 8:3, ". . . know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. . . ."

Some teachings occur only once. Some are repeated. Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4.

Yes, of course. Some teachings are repeated dnd others are not.

 

[37818]

But you have not expressed any actual penal substitution.

Well, I cannot help the fact that phrase "penal substitution" does not mean the same to you that it means to me. It is a problem of understanding words, concepts and language. Wordless concepts are worthless.

What I am calling "penal substitution" you seem to call it a "not penal substitution," to me a meaningless wordless worthless concept. A denial.

 

[JonC]

Well, I cannot help the fact that phrase "penal substitution" does not mean the same to you that it means to me. It is a problem of understanding words, concepts and language. Wordless concepts are worthless.

What I am calling "penal substitution" you seem to call it a "not penal substitution," to me a meaningless wordless worthless concept. A denial.

I understand.

Sometimes people like to make up words, or meanings of words, to fit into a group or to give their ideas meaning.

But this is not necessary.

Penal Substitution has a very specific meaning. There are various takes on the theory, but it has a common basic meaning.

Here is the dictionary meaning of penal substitution - a development of the satisfaction theory of the atonement introduced by the Protestant reformers and prevalent in Lutheran and Reformed orthodoxy that holds that Christ reconciled man to God by participating in human life to the extent of taking on himself without corruption the status of sinner and bearing in his soul the penal torment and desolation (Websters).


That is, of course, a secular definition.

In theology it carries that meaning but includes that penal torment being inflected by God instead of God inflicting it on us.

Some go as far as saying God separated from Christ as a part of this torment.

You do not, from your comments, affirm penal substitution (which is a good thing). You hold an extraordinary unorthodox view (which could be a bad thing, but not necessarily).

So the question is exactly why you chose the term "Penal Substitution" to describe your view if you do reject the actual definitions of Penal Substitution.

 

[37818]

@JonC,
Your signature,
"People are more likely to be right in what they affirm than in what they deny." F.D. Maurice

 

[JonC]

@JonC,
Your signature,
"People are more likely to be right in what they affirm than in what they deny." F.D. Maurice

True.

But this does not fall into that category.

I'm not talking about what you say you believe.

I am talking about penal substitution (a belief I held for most of my life).

You reject penal substitution, but call your view (which I'm sure I don't fully get) "penal substitution".

My question is why?

What if I call my view "penal substitution" and add to the count?

It wouldn't be your "penal substitution". It wouldn't be the actual definition of "penal substitution".

Don't you get how complicated discussion would be if we treated these historic theories so subjectively?

 

[37818]

I understand.

Sometimes people like to make up words, or meanings of words, to fit into a group or to give their ideas meaning.

But this is not necessary.

Penal Substitution has a very specific meaning. There are various takes on the theory, but it has a common basic meaning.

Here is the dictionary meaning of penal substitution - a development of the satisfaction theory of the atonement introduced by the Protestant reformers and prevalent in Lutheran and Reformed orthodoxy that holds that Christ reconciled man to God by participating in human life to the extent of taking on himself without corruption the status of sinner and bearing in his soul the penal torment and desolation (Websters).


That is, of course, a secular definition.

In theology it carries that meaning but includes that penal torment being inflected by God instead of God inflicting it on us.

Some go as far as saying God separated from Christ as a part of this torment.

You do not, from your comments, affirm penal substitution (which is a good thing). You hold an extraordinary unorthodox view (which could be a bad thing, but not necessarily).

So the question is exactly why you chose the term "Penal Substitution" to describe your view if you do reject the actual definitions of Penal Substitution.

How precisely is my use of the term "Penal Substitution" different than what you are saying is to be it's only correct use?

 

[JonC]

How precisely is my use of the term "Penal Substitution" different than what you are saying is to be it's only correct use?

When asked you offered a couple of verses as meaning "penal substitution" (verses that do not actually state the teaching of penal substitution) and you were unable to confirm that you believed the definition of penal substitution.

If you cannot confirm a belief in penal substitution then it is not logical to assume you actually hold it as true, even if you like the term.

 

[JonC]

@37818

For your belief to be penal substitution you would have to add to Scripture. You would have to add that God punished our sins laid on Jesus instead of punishing us as a means of forgiving us. You would have to change Christ dying for our sins by adding "instead of us".

I may not agree with your interpretation of Scripture, but I do not get the impression that you are willing to add to God's Word.

 

[37818]

For your belief to be penal substitution you would have to add to Scripture.

That is not true.

The soul that sins must die. Penal.

According to Isaiah 53:10 and Mark 10:45 Jesus offered His soul. In exchange, a subscription.

What is being added?

 

[Silverhair]

I really do believe you when you say that. But you have to be deliberately ignoring what is there.
Penal Substitution Theory: The belief that in his death Christ suffered the penalty for our breaking of the law and died as a substitute in our place (penal, involving penalty or legal punishment, from the Lat, poena, punishment, penalty, compensation).
That's from "The Atonement, The Person and Work of Christ". by T.F. Torrance

I could draw it out but I urge anyone to look above and jot down the phrases that match the definitions on a piece of paper and you will see for yourself the parallels. This is especially amazing in that the Diognetus citation was in no way trying to meet any definition because it had not been introduced yet as "penal substitution".

And, don't let those on here who deliberately try to confuse you whenever the term "ransom" is used to make it seem like this is opposed to penal substitution. The ransom is a payment and when it is a payment to God, as Owen puts it in his larger catechism, it falls under penal substitution. Owen says what was paid was His blood and it was to God, not to Satan.
You can disregard that if you also want to take the position that Owen was against penal substitution.

The simple fact is, any time you have the concept of Christ dying for our sins, or shedding his blood for our sins, you have met the definitional requirement for "substitution". If you have this occurring to meet some idea of what God requires for the concept of justice as a result of us sinning or as specifically breaking the law and thus incurring a penalty you have "penal". That is why you have so many claims that this is in the writings of the early church fathers, the Bible, and of course Reformed theologians, Calvinist and Arminian.

RANSOM: In Scripture, to redeem from the bondage of sin, and from the punishment to which sinners are subjected by the divine law.

I am not deliberately ignoring what is there. I am telling you what I do not see there. PSA

He gave His own Son as a ransom for us,

for transgressors

for the wicked

for the unrighteous

for the corruptible

for them that are mortal

These are whom He came to save. I would think you would agree with this.

What covered our sins “His righteousness”.

What is clear in these words is substitution, our ungodliness for His righteousness.

The (Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2–5) says nothing about penalty. You have to be deliberately ignoring what is there to read PSA into those words.

 

[JonC]

That is not true.

The soul that sins must die. Penal.

According to Isaiah 53:10 and Mark 10:45 Jesus offered His soul. In exchange, a subscription.

What is being added?

What is added? With you or penal substitution?

Penal Substitution adds that God punished our sins laid on Jesus instead of punishing us as a means of forgiving us and that Christ dying for our sins by adding "instead of us".

You seem to think that the soul that sins does not have to die (that we sin but don't die).

Christ shared in our death, the consequences of our sin. He did not die because of His sin. We die because of our sin (the soul that sins must die....Christ did not have to die
...we do).

 

[37818]

What is added? With you or penal substitution?

For your belief to be penal substitution you would have to add to Scripture.

This is your accusation.

 

[37818]

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

I am not an only Christion who believes in a Biblical penal substitution. From any one of those 3 links show me one thing being added to Scripture. Quote the sentence in which that was actually done.

 

[37818]

We die because of our sin (the soul that sins must die....

Physical death is NOT death of the person's soul, per Matthew 10:28. Death of the human soul does not occur until the second [physical] death.

The three different deaths to death.

 

[Piper]

I am not an only Christion who believes in a Biblical penal substitution. From any one of those 3 links show me one thing being added to Scripture. Quote the sentence in which that was actually done.

The MAJORITY of Evangelical Christians today believe along with you that Biblical Penal Substitution is THE CORRECT Biblical view.