Penal Substitution Hypothetical question

[37818]

You tell me. Was Jesus alive in John 19:28, when all things were accomplished, or had Jesus already died?

Yes. That death He received when He was forsaken by His Father. And that death was over. His fellowship with His Father was already fully restored.

 

[JonC]

Yes. That death He received when was forsaken by His Father. And that death was over. His fellowship with His Father was already fully restored.

That is what I was saying as well (not what I believe but what Penal Substitution Theory ultimately means).

Penal Substitution Theory's necessary conclusion is that Christ had to suffer, experience a type of death as separation, for our sins. But Christ did not have to actually die (physically) for our sins.

And the Roman cross was not necessary because His suffering and death was ultimately an act of God rather than the World. He needed to die on a tree as prophesized, but the actual punishment was wrought by God and experienced in our stead.

That is a big difference in atonement views.

 

[DaveXR650]

Except that is not penal substitutionary atonement. The satisfaction of Christ at the atonement involves fulfilling the law and it's penalty. Death is required and multiple scriptures show that. What you are showing, Jon, is almost an obsession with avoiding the clear scriptures that indicate that Christ made satisfaction by dying for our sins, dying in our stead, having the guilt and punishment put on him so that he bore it instead of us. Other aspects of what happened at the cross are true and are shared by the theologians who advocate penal substitution like Owen does. Even modern guys like Torrance do this. This argument is getting silly.

 

[JonC]

Except that is not penal substitutionary atonement. The satisfaction of Christ at the atonement involves fulfilling the law and it's penalty. Death is required and multiple scriptures show that. What you are showing, Jon, is almost an obsession with avoiding the clear scriptures that indicate that Christ made satisfaction by dying for our sins, dying in our stead, having the guilt and punishment put on him so that he bore it instead of us. Other aspects of what happened at the cross are true and are shared by the theologians who advocate penal substitution like Owen does. Even modern guys like Torrance do this. This argument is getting silly.

You think it is silly, but it isn't.

@37818 is absolutely correct.

If Christ suffered our punishment instead of us and we die physically then physical death is not a part of God's judgment against sin.

That means that Jesus' death is meaningless insofar as redemption is concern. It was merely an exit. Were Christ to have ascended to God before dying Penal Substitution Theory would be exactly the same.

Since you believe it silly, please tell us (in your own words) exactly what Christ's physical death - a death that we will also suffer - accomplished in terms of forgiving our sins.

 

[DaveXR650]

Since you believe it silly, please tell us (in your own words) exactly what Christ's physical death - a death that we will also suffer - accomplished in terms of forgiving our sins.

I'll use my own words so just understand that what I say is not intended to offend anyone based on differences in extent of the atonement, only to show what it did.
His death was part of the plan for our redemption. It was God's will (and I'm including Son and Holy Spirit) that Jesus atoning death would be satisfactory to God, enabling him to forgive repentant sinners without being inconsistent within his own nature, which puts an equally high priority on justice, as well as mercy.
There are multiple aspects involved here and no single verse has all aspects yet each aspect is supported by verses. This by the way is the way it is with all Christian doctrines which have a developed theology or a confessional nature.

Death of the sacrifice was required and proof of death was by the shedding of blood. This stops all nonsense of punishment not going all the way to death being redemptive. Anyone who says that "by his stripes we are healed" and then takes that and says that proves that a whipping would be sufficient for example should never be trusted to interpret scripture. Scripture says that the life is in the blood (we know medically that that is metaphorical) but the meaning is clear: violent, deliberate death actually had to be inflicted upon the sacrifice and the end point had to be death. Death is what the law required and it is what the sacrificial system required.

We can only speculate on why Jesus death was sufficiently propitiatory and satisfactory to God but we are told in scripture that it was. Also, scripture seems to indicate more was going on in the atonement than we are directly told. Theologians speculate that Jesus agony over his death had to be more than the prospect of the physical because many Christian martyrs actually suffer their physical executions almost cheerfully. It is surmised that Jesus was contemplating the taking on of our sins, as scripture clearly teaches, that caused this extra angst for him.

All of our actual ability to come to God or stand before God is based on this work of Christ. God is allowed to ask for any "conditions" or acts in addition that he wants and he is allowed to demand ongoing obedience or holiness as he chooses. He is allowed to still have life be as he ordered it with physical death, subjection to violence, disease, accident, vanity of life and so on without answering to you that that indicates some deficiency in the atonement.

 

[37818]

That is what I was saying as well (not what I believe but what Penal Substitution Theory ultimately means).

Penal Substitution Theory's necessary conclusion is that Christ had to suffer, experience a type of death as separation, for our sins. But Christ did not have to actually die (physically) for our sins.

And the Roman cross was not necessary because His suffering and death was ultimately an act of God rather than the World. He needed to die on a tree as prophesized, but the actual punishment was wrought by God and experienced in our stead.

That is a big difference in atonement views.

I do not think you understand what you think you do. His bl

That is what I was saying as well (not what I believe but what Penal Substitution Theory ultimately means).

Penal Substitution Theory's necessary conclusion is that Christ had to suffer, experience a type of death as separation, for our sins. But Christ did not have to actually die (physically) for our sins.

And the Roman cross was not necessary because His suffering and death was ultimately an act of God rather than the World. He needed to die on a tree as prophesized, but the actual punishment was wrought by God and experienced in our stead.

That is a big difference in atonement views.

Death of the soul and death of the body are two different deaths. I am of the persuasion Jesus soul died prior to John 19:28 per Psalms 22:1-6, Matthew 27:46. Once that was finished His soul was no longer dead before He physically died.

 

[JonC]

I do not think you understand what you think you do. His bl

Death of the soul and death of the body are two different deaths. I am of the persuasion Jesus soul died prior to John 19:28 per Psalms 22:1-6, Matthew 27:46. Once that was finished His soul was no longer dead before He physically died.

I understand as we have had this discussion before and you were kind enough to explain your position.

I simply disagree (do we will not agree on this point).

I believe that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, and that the second death is the lake of fire.

 

[JonC]

I'll use my own words so just understand that what I say is not intended to offend anyone based on differences in extent of the atonement, only to show what it did.
His death was part of the plan for our redemption. It was God's will (and I'm including Son and Holy Spirit) that Jesus atoning death would be satisfactory to God, enabling him to forgive repentant sinners without being inconsistent within his own nature, which puts an equally high priority on justice, as well as mercy.
There are multiple aspects involved here and no single verse has all aspects yet each aspect is supported by verses. This by the way is the way it is with all Christian doctrines which have a developed theology or a confessional nature.

Death of the sacrifice was required and proof of death was by the shedding of blood. This stops all nonsense of punishment not going all the way to death being redemptive. Anyone who says that "by his stripes we are healed" and then takes that and says that proves that a whipping would be sufficient for example should never be trusted to interpret scripture. Scripture says that the life is in the blood (we know medically that that is metaphorical) but the meaning is clear: violent, deliberate death actually had to be inflicted upon the sacrifice and the end point had to be death. Death is what the law required and it is what the sacrificial system required.

We can only speculate on why Jesus death was sufficiently propitiatory and satisfactory to God but we are told in scripture that it was. Also, scripture seems to indicate more was going on in the atonement than we are directly told. Theologians speculate that Jesus agony over his death had to be more than the prospect of the physical because many Christian martyrs actually suffer their physical executions almost cheerfully. It is surmised that Jesus was contemplating the taking on of our sins, as scripture clearly teaches, that caused this extra angst for him.

All of our actual ability to come to God or stand before God is based on this work of Christ. God is allowed to ask for any "conditions" or acts in addition that he wants and he is allowed to demand ongoing obedience or holiness as he chooses. He is allowed to still have life be as he ordered it with physical death, subjection to violence, disease, accident, vanity of life and so on without answering to you that that indicates some deficiency in the atonement.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position.

The way I understand your words is that there is no specific reason for Christ to have died except that this was God's plan (His death was not in our place as we die, but was required of God and is something to accept as true).

My point is that Penal Substitution itself does not depend on Christ dying. Christ, according to that theory, propitiated God's anger towards us by experiencing that anger instead of us experiencing that wrath.

I am in no way claiming that you do not believe Christ had to die. But I am saying that His death is not necessary strictly under the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

I do not assume the Penal Substitution Theory to constitute your entire belief system or faith.


Here are a few things to consider:

1. God presents with two types of death. One is physical death which is appointed all men followed by the judgment. The other is the lake of fire " the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death").

Christ suffered a physical death. Christ did not suffer the second death. He was not cast into the Lake of Fire.

Penal Substitution theorists hold there is another type of death - typically a separation or break in fellowship with God - that Adam experienced in the Garden and Christ experienced in the Cross. Viewing death this way is a mistake.

In Genesis Adam was cast out of the Garden, and the Garden was a unique place where Adam enjoyed fellowship with God. BUT Adam was not originally in the Garden, originally in that state of fellowship, and when he was cast out he was returned from whence he had been taken. This casting out from the Garden was not the first time Adam was in that situation.

Even if Christ experienced a separation from God (an idea I reject) the second death is not defined as separation. It includes separation, but it is a specific place - a place prepared for Satan and his demons.

2. Christ experiencing death cannot, under Penal Substitution Theory, be God's punishment for our sins that we would suffer because we experience death and Christ did not experience the second death. The best it actually does is say Christ experienced something that God accepted in place of the punishment we would have suffered (satisfaction, not substitution).

The issue remains that we still suffer the wages of sin (death). If this is even a part of our punishment for sin by God then God is unjust to require it twice (once from us, once from Christ).

3. We are still left with the fact that Penal Substitution Theory has no actual use for the Cross (specifically) or for Christ's death. People affirm Christ had to die, but their reason is "mystery", or as you said
"God is allowed to ask for any conditions or acts in addition that he wants and he is allowed to demand ongoing obedience or holiness as he chooses."

The reason is that is what God wanted, not that Christ's death actually redeems man in any significant way. God just decided His Christ must die.


That is what I mean when I say that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement has no use for the Cross or for Christ's death. Had God decided that Christ should suffer by being stoned and then ascend without dying the Penal Substitution Theory would not be affected at all.

Classic Christianity, however, depends on Christ dying on a Roman cross. Christ had to die in order for man to be saved. Not because of some mystery in God's plan.


Another difference is how you view the sacrifice system. You assume it was as ANE pagan sacrifices. It was not. Sacrifices were not made, under the Old Covenant, on an altar. Priests were not punishing animals. Sins were not forgiven. The importance was in the shedding of blood which was to cleanse. It was a preparation for the people (symbolically, foreshadowing the cross) which covered sins (looking to actual forgiveness) for God to "dwell with His people'.

Penal Substitution Theory makes assumptions and reads even into the levitical system.

 

[37818]

I understand as we have had this discussion before and you were kind enough to explain your position.

I simply disagree (do we will not agree on this point).

I believe that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, and that the second death is the lake of fire.

It is my understandind, the second death is a second phisical death of the body and the death of the soul.

Jesus taught death of the body is not death of the soul. But Gehenna of the final judgment the soul dies. See Matthew 10:28.

 

[DaveXR650]

The way I understand your words is that there is no specific reason for Christ to have died except that this was God's plan (His death was not in our place as we die, but was required of God and is something to accept as true).

Jon. Honestly, this is almost a cognitive issue with you. When you fold everything back on itself like you do it makes it impossible to come to any kind of progression. Me claiming it was God's plan does not lead to the conclusion that therefore there was no specific reason.

My point is that Penal Substitution itself does not depend on Christ dying.

I understand that. That's why I posted what I did trying to show why I believe it does. Why don't you address what I said?

Christ suffered a physical death. Christ did not suffer the second death. He was not cast into the Lake of Fire.

Penal Substitution theorists hold there is another type of death - typically a separation or break in fellowship with God - that Adam experienced in the Garden and Christ experienced in the Cross. Viewing death this way is a mistake.

I agree that Christ was not cast into the Lake of Fire. I have read the speculation of theologians that he did things after his physical death but I don't know enough to comment on that. I don't have an opinion as to whether the separation from God constitutes "spiritual death" in Genesis 3.

In Genesis Adam was cast out of the Garden, and the Garden was a unique place where Adam enjoyed fellowship with God. BUT Adam was not originally in the Garden, originally in that state of fellowship, and when he was cast out he was returned from whence he had been taken. This casting out from the Garden was not the first time Adam was in that situation.

That the garden was not Adam's original home is new to me and not relevant to this discussion.

2. Christ experiencing death cannot, under Penal Substitution Theory, be God's punishment for our sins that we would suffer because we experience death and Christ did not experience the second death. The best it actually does is say Christ experienced something that God accepted in place of the punishment we would have suffered (satisfaction, not substitution).

The premise that if Christ bore our sins then we have a right to expect that nothing can happen to us now is simply wrong. God has chosen to have us all die physically, work to survive, be subject to disease and injury and anything else he chooses. The fact that he has chosen to save some of us does not mean therefore that he must now meet all our expectations for a happy life.
Secondly, if becomes "substitutionary" by the fact that Jesus suffered and died in our place. And yes, specifically how that worked and the level it must be was according to what the Father and Son determines was "satisfaction".

Had God decided that Christ should suffer by being stoned and then ascend without dying the Penal Substitution Theory would not be affected at all.

I assume, reverently, that if God had decided otherwise he could have done so. But the whole scheme and order of divine revelation points to the cross as God's plan so that is ridiculous surmising.

Classic Christianity, however, depends on Christ dying on a Roman cross. Christ had to die in order for man to be saved. Not because of some mystery in God's plan.

The whole reason for my post was to explain this - and then you go back to asking this again. Please address my points.

Another difference is how you view the sacrifice system. You assume it was as ANE pagan sacrifices.

This argument is a worn out one. There is nothing "pagan" about a God who provides his own Son as the Lamb and propitiates himself.
Jon. You are grasping and floundering. You can't answer my points but keep going back to your assertions. I'm done with this. No offense intended but I don't know of anything else to say.

 

[JonC]

Jon. Honestly, this is almost a cognitive issue with you. When you fold everything back on itself like you do it makes it impossible to come to any kind of progression. Me claiming it was God's plan does not lead to the conclusion that therefore there was no specific reason.

I understand that. That's why I posted what I did trying to show why I believe it does. Why don't you address what I said?

I agree that Christ was not cast into the Lake of Fire. I have read the speculation of theologians that he did things after his physical death but I don't know enough to comment on that. I don't have an opinion as to whether the separation from God constitutes "spiritual death" in Genesis 3.

That the garden was not Adam's original home is new to me and not relevant to this discussion.

The premise that if Christ bore our sins then we have a right to expect that nothing can happen to us now is simply wrong. God has chosen to have us all die physically, work to survive, be subject to disease and injury and anything else he chooses. The fact that he has chosen to save some of us does not mean therefore that he must now meet all our expectations for a happy life.
Secondly, if becomes "substitutionary" by the fact that Jesus suffered and died in our place. And yes, specifically how that worked and the level it must be was according to what the Father and Son determines was "satisfaction".

I assume, reverently, that if God had decided otherwise he could have done so. But the whole scheme and order of divine revelation points to the cross as God's plan so that is ridiculous surmising.
The whole reason for my post was to explain this - and then you go back to asking this again. Please address my points.

This argument is a worn out one. There is nothing "pagan" about a God who provides his own Son as the Lamb and propitiates himself.
Jon. You are grasping and floundering. You can't answer my points but keep going back to your assertions. I'm done with this. No offense intended but I don't know of anything else to say.

I do not understand what it is you want me to address (that I haven't). Reply specifically with what you were asking.

I can assure you that any thing you view as "floundering" is a misunderstanding on your part, perhaps due to a lack of articulation on mine.

Please reply with what you didn't understand if my position and I will try to do better in explaining it.

Nothing, however, will change the fact that Penal Substitution Theory does not necessitate Christ's death or the Cross except to say that was what God wanted. Technically that is in addition to the theory.

Ultimately the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement bases forgiveness in the Father punishing our sins laid on Christ. The Cross and Christ's death is merely an addition that Penal Substitution theorists accept.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is completely unbiblical. Additions Penal Substitution theorists hold may or may not be.

You prove this with your posts, although for now I do not think you have yet realized this fact. It would be better for you to simply accept Scripture - not as supporting Penal Substitution Theory but as stating God's work of redemption.

 

[DaveXR650]

I do not understand what it is you want me to address (that I haven't). Reply specifically with what you were asking.

This is what you stated for this thread:

Then suppose rather than dying Christ ascended directly to the right hand of the Father.

My post answered that in my own words as you asked. It may not be sufficient to convince you but it's what I consider the proper answer to be. I have nothing else to contribute to this thread that I can think of at the moment.

My point is that Penal Substitution itself does not depend on Christ dying.

I know that's your point. I showed why I believe that Christ's death was essential. Is there some reference to some penal substitution advocate that maintains that Christ did not have to die? If so, show me where this comes from. If it truly is just your hypothetical question then why is it important at all to anyone?

 

[JonC]

This is what you stated for this thread:

My post answered that in my own words as you asked. It may not be sufficient to convince you but it's what I consider the proper answer to be. I have nothing else to contribute to this thread that I can think of at the moment.

I know that's your point. I showed why I believe that Christ's death was essential. Is there some reference to some penal substitution advocate that maintains that Christ did not have to die? If so, show me where this comes from. If it truly is just your hypothetical question then why is it important at all to anyone?

I am not asking to be convinced, nor am I trying to convince.

From your own post I understand you to say that Penal Substitution Theory would not be affected if Christ had not died provided that God had not intended Christ's death.

The only reason you provide for relating Christ's death to atoning for our sins is mystery. The only reason you give for believing that Christ died for our sins is that Scripture says He did.

Per your posts, our forgiveness is not based on Christ's death or resurrection but on Christ taking God's punishment for our sins instead of us.

That confirms what I have been saying. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does not technically necessitate the Cross or Christ's death in order for man to be forgiven. It depends on God punishing sinful actions in order to "forgive" those sinful actions.

Christ's death is meaningless (it has no effective meaning) within your theory.

That is one reason traditional Christianity has historically viewed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as a heresy. Where traditional Christian faith is literally based on Christ, Penal Substitution Theory is based on God punishing sins in order to forgive those sins (it attempts to approach redemption through divine judgment, circumventing Christ except as an object of that judgment).

 

[JonC]

.
I know that's your point. I showed why I believe that Christ's death was essential. Is there some reference to some penal substitution advocate that maintains that Christ did not have to die? If so, show me where this comes from. If it truly is just your hypothetical question then why is it important at all to anyone?

Yes. Your post is one reference

Why did Christ have to die? You say it is a mystery, just something that Scripture says. But you are unable to relate that to redemption. You stated that it was simply determined by God that He should die.

A better argument on your point would have been to relate that to obedience, but still Christ's death would be meaningless (if God had not required it Penal Substitution Theory would not be affected at all).


The reason it is important is traditional Christian faith views Christ's death as essential because this is the bondage that we suffer under the power of Satan. Christ would have to suffer the same fate, underserved, to reconcile man and God (to actually be the Son of Man).

But Penal Substitution Theory itself does not depend on Christ's death except that it was required to occur.

I understand why you do not believe it important, but that is because you are a Penal Substitution theorist. It is vitally important to traditional Christian faith because it is how we are saved.

It demonstrates a difference.

 

[DaveXR650]

From your own post I understand you to say that Penal Substitution Theory would not be affected if Christ had not died provided that God had not intended Christ's death.

No. If God had not intended Christ's death it would not have been necessary. But then penal substitution would not have existed.

The only reason you provide for relating Christ's death to atoning for our sins is mystery.

No. But the actual interaction of love, justice, mercy and reconciliation of sinners to God and God to sinners is a mystery.

The only reason you give for believing that Christ died for our sins is that Scripture says He did.

That should be a pretty good reason.

Per your posts, our forgiveness is not based on Christ's death or resurrection but on Christ taking God's punishment for our sins instead of us.

No

It depends on God punishing sinful actions in order to "forgive" those sinful actions.

Good example of when I posted above how God is just and merciful at the same time and you didn't object but then come back with this.

That is one reason traditional Christianity has historically viewed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as a heresy.

Is there a reference to that except for yourself?

 

[JonC]

That the garden was not Adam's original home is new to me and not relevant to this discussion.

I know it is new to you. That is because you look to Genesis 3 to support your theory rather than allowing Scripture to dictate your belief.

It is relative to this discussion because Genesis 3 is relative to this discussion. It is not by accident that we are told twice in Genesis that the Garden was not Adam's original home. It is essential. It matters.

Genesis 2:7–8 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

Genesis 3:22–23. Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

 

[JonC]

No. If God had not intended Christ's death it would not have been necessary. But then penal substitution would not have existed.

No. But the actual interaction of love, justice, mercy and reconciliation of sinners to God and God to sinners is a mystery.
That should be a pretty good reason.
No

Good example of when I posted above how God is just and merciful at the same time and you didn't object but then come back with this.

Is there a reference to that except for yourself?

You are wrong. I have repeatedly objected to the theory that God punished sins to forgive those sins. I stated that that is not forgiveness. I already addressed God being just and justifier of sinners.

I have also, repeatedly, provided you with a list of several theologians (many Baptist scholars) who stated that Penal Substitution Theory is a heresy.

I even liked the post the last time you tried this distraction. I have to believe that you are starting to see the issue I am speaking of and simply trying to cloud the discussion.

So to keep it short and remove that tactic, it does not matter what others believe of Penal Substitution Theory. It matters what Scripture says.

If Christ did not die (if God did not somehow include this as a satisfaction for punishment) then Penal Substitution Theory would not change.

God would have forgiven us in the same way - by transferring our sinful actions into Christ and punishing those actions to forgive those actions.

Penal Substitution Theory itself has nothing to do with Christ's actual death (His physical death). It really does not have to do with separation either (the wicked will be separated from God, but that is only a part of the second death).

As long as God was satisfied in the punishment Penal Substitution Theory would stand. Had God decided to punish Jesus with fire ants and was able to accept that as punishment enough Penal Substitution Theory would not change.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

We can settle this very simply.

I believe (and traditional Christian faith holds) that Christ had to die physically under the bondage of sin and death, under the power of Satan, as we will die (not instead of us) in order to free us from its bonds by reconciling mankind and God (solidarity) in order to become the Second Adam so that those who are made new creations in Him would have life. This is similar to the way natural man is related to Adam. This had to be on a Roman cross because the Roman Empire was the symbol of the World, and was the government that Israel viewed as it's oppressor (Rome represented Satan's power).

Why do you believe Jesus had to physically die on a Roman cross?



The reason I keep this up is we can learn from one another.

These discussions have solidified my position. Some of the things that have been brought up I had not considered. I am more opposed to Penal Substitution Theory than I were when we started.

You have learned from me as well....at least that the Garden was not Adam's original home and when cast from the Garden he was returned from where he had been taken.

So the discussion has not been useless.

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe (and traditional Christian faith holds) that Christ had to die physically under the bondage of sin and death, under the power of Satan, as we will die (not instead of us) in order to free us from its bonds by reconciling mankind and God (solidarity) in order to become the Second Adam so that those who are made new creations in Him would have life. This is similar to the way natural man is related to Adam. This had to be on a Roman cross because the Roman Empire was the symbol of the World, and was the government that Israel viewed as it's oppressor (Rome represented Satan's power).

I am in agreement with the statement above but I believe there is a necessity to add that Christ was under the bondage of sin and death because he was taking our sin on himself and dying in our stead. It doesn't make the theory wrong or damage it in any way but it is the result of further study of scripture. Early church fathers seemed to be on track to go in that direction judging from some of the things they said. In addition there is no means of reconciling spelled out in your theory. In fact, that brings up a very important point. Why is there a need of "reconciliation" at all. It is because of man's sin and nothing explains it like PSA. The solidarity needed is provided by the fact that Christ was fully man and thus could completely identify with us and act as our head as the second Adam. There are all kinds of prophesies fulfilled by the fact that Jesus died on a cross and I also have no problem agreeing with the symbolism of Rome above.

You have learned from me as well....at least that the Garden was not Adam's original home and when cast from the Garden he was returned from where he had been taken.

I'm not sure I agree with that but I don't wish to go there at this time.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have also, repeatedly, provided you with a list of several theologians (many Baptist scholars) who stated that Penal Substitution Theory is a heresy.

And I tend to think those guys are heretics. So here we are.

I even liked the post the last time you tried this distraction. I have to believe that you are starting to see the issue I am speaking of and simply trying to cloud the discussion.

What solidified my position more than anything was when I obtained Torrance's book on the atonement and realized that penal substitution was a very important part of a full explanation of the atonement, even in his eyes. I do appreciate you putting me on to him. This has also given me a greater appreciation of John Owen. I had always viewed his "Death of Death in the Death of Christ" as a trouncing of the Arminians but going back I realize it is a valuable source for anyone wanting a clear explanation of the meaning, as well as the extent of the atonement.

You can have the last word but I am signing off of this.