Penal Substitution Theory

[JonC]

Does God have active wrath and condemnation towards those in hell?

If you mean has all judgment been given to Christ, then yes. There is the wrath to come, and we escape that wrath by being "in Christ" (in Whom there is no condemnation).

John 3:18–19 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

 

[JonC]

Jesus took upon Himself and suffered per the will of the Father as per Isaiah 53!

Yes. That is what I have been saying.

Per Isaiah 53 the World considered Christ to be stricken or afflicted by God when instead He was redeeming man. His suffering and death was via evil men, but this was the predetermined plan of God. God offered Him, and He lay down His life, as an atonement for us.

But nowhere in Isaiah (or all of Scripture) is Christ's death presented as appeasing God, or is God presented as punishing Him (or punishing our sins on Him).

 

[JesusFan]

If you mean has all judgment been given to Christ, then yes. There is the wrath to come, and we escape that wrath by being "in Christ" (in Whom there is no condemnation).

John 3:18–19 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

Does God have active wrath towards those who have rejected His own Son to save them?

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. That is what I have been saying.

Per Isaiah 53 the World considered Christ to be stricken or afflicted by God when instead He was redeeming man. His suffering and death was via evil men, but this was the predetermined plan of God. God offered Him, and He lay down His life, as an atonement for us.

But nowhere in Isaiah (or all of Scripture) is Christ's death presented as appeasing God, or is God presented as punishing Him (or punishing our sins on Him).

Propitiated is a biblical doctrine!

 

[kyredneck]

Propitiated is a biblical doctrine!

10 out of 24 posts on this thread are yours. These 'one-liner' quips void of scripture that you congest threads with is how you amassed >52,000 posts under yout belt.

 

[Aaron]

Christ died to appease the World, to appease a satanic idea of justice that would seek to kill the Righteous One.

Can anyone come away from the testimony of Scripture with a more perverse notion of Christ's central work?

 

[JonC]

Can anyone come away from the testimony of Scripture with a more perverse notion of Christ's central work?

Than Penal Substitution Theory? Probably. There are many cults out there.

But, as you probably know, until the Reformation it was common Christian belief that Christ's death did not appease God but met the demands of the World. Augustine even stressed that the idea Christ's death appeased God was a strong heresy.

 

[JonC]

Propitiated is a biblical doctrine!

Yes, it is a biblical doctrine. And it is true. In Christ there is no condemnation and we do escape the wrath to come.

Does God have active wrath towards those who have rejected His own Son to save them?

Scripture says this judgment has been given to Christ (to the Son). He is God. So yes.

 

[37818]

Exactly.

Christ bore our sins in His body. He died the death we earn. He died for our sins - the Just for the unjust. And, God forsake Christ to suffer and die at the hands of wicked men.

And when Christ suffered and died at the hands of these wicked men, under the power of Satan, God vindicated Him and raised Him from the dead. Christ, having gained victory over sin and death, having victory over Satan, freed us from its bonds. Death no longer has its sting.

It has nothing to do with Penal Substitution Theory, though. That theory replaces evil with God and claims Christ suffered and died at God's hand (rather than at the hands of "wicked men" under the predetermined plan of God.

The Theory is different because it changes and adds to Scripture. It is a false doctrine.

I like your explanation. But I do not see what is being added and changed from the Scripture. And I do not see and either or here between the evil wicked men God used from God forsaking Him on our behalf. It was still God who layed on Him our sins. Isaiah 53:6. If there is a distinction being made, that I am not sure is being made clear.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What is the difference between penal substitution and penal substitution "theory?"
Isaiah 53:6
Romans 5:8
1 Corinthians 15:3

The Doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
I have no idea what @JonC's penal substitution theory is.

 

[agedman]

The Doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
I have no idea what @JonC's penal substitution theory is.

However, your brief on the theory is not what is held nor taught. This statement fits more into substitution theory then PSA theory.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That the Father inflicted pain and suffering upon Christ is shown in Isaiah 53:10. Verse 5 tells us that our Lord's wounds and bruising were for our transgressions and iniquities. Verse 6 says that Yahweh laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Go figure.

If anyone needs further evidence that it was indeed God the Father who struck the Lord Jesus, let Him tell you, "For it is written, 'I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'" (Matthew 26:31 quoting Zechariah 13:7).

As I said in the other thread, we should meditate upon Isaiah 53:10.

'How great the Father's love for us!
How vast beyond all measure,
That He would give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.'

 

[agedman]

That the Father inflicted pain and suffering upon Christ is shown in Isaiah 53:10. Verse 5 tells us that our Lord's wounds and bruising were for our transgressions and iniquities. Verse 6 says that Yahweh laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Go figure.

If anyone needs further evidence that it was indeed God the Father who struck the Lord Jesus, let Him tell you, "For it is written, 'I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'" (Matthew 26:31 quoting Zechariah 13:7).

As I said in the other thread, we should meditate upon Isaiah 53:10.


'How great the Father's love for us!
How vast beyond all measure,
That He would give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.'

Only God could transfer and take on the iniquity of the Kosmos. that is sound

However, at no place is it recorded that God afflicted the Son for carrying out the plan of God.

Mosses was afflicted prior to going to Egypt because he was uncircumcised, but not the Christ.

He was totally pure, totally innocent, and it would be an affront to the character of God to show He punished one innocent and pure.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

However, your brief on the theory is not what is held nor taught. This statement fits more into substitution theory then PSA theory.

I didn't give a brief on the 'theory.' And the definition of the Doctrine is not mine, but given at the start of a massive and comprehensive book on Penal Substitution.
The theory of PSA is a caricature of the true doctrine.

 

[agedman]

I didn't give a brief on the 'theory.' And the definition of the Doctrine is not mine, but given at the start of a massive and comprehensive book on Penal Substitution.
The theory of PSA is a caricature of the true doctrine.

Well, since you didn’t present the whole, then it was a brief. Never the less, the brief is correct, but the teachings drift into error.

 

[JonC]

That the Father inflicted pain and suffering upon Christ is shown in Isaiah 53:10. Verse 5 tells us that our Lord's wounds and bruising were for our transgressions and iniquities. Verse 6 says that Yahweh laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Go figure.

If anyone needs further evidence that it was indeed God the Father who struck the Lord Jesus, let Him tell you, "For it is written, 'I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'" (Matthew 26:31 quoting Zechariah 13:7).

As I said in the other thread, we should meditate upon Isaiah 53:10.

'How great the Father's love for us!
How vast beyond all measure,
That He would give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.'

You are wrong.

Re-read that passage.

Isaiah 53:10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.

Nowhere does the verse, as you claim, say the Father inflicted pain and suffering on Him. That is your addition to Scripture (and the reason that idea was never held by Christians until the 15th Century).

 

[37818]

The Doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
I have no idea what @JonC's penal substitution theory is.

Reference Hebrews 1:2-3, ". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; . . ."

 

[agedman]

Reference Hebrews 1:2-3, ". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; . . ."

I went through that yesterday on the other thread.

it in no manner, nor is chapter 2 of Hebrews, supporting PSA theory.

It most assuredly supports the victorious Christ presentation the whole of the NT presents and the OT prophecied both in statement and pictures.

 

[JonC]

The Doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
I have no idea what @JonC's penal substitution theory is.

I can help (I've said it over and over again....for your benefit one more time won't hurt).

The theory part (the part you may very well reject, if you are sticking to Scripture) is the false doctrine that God inflicted Christ's suffering and death, that Christ took upon Himself God's wrath, that Christ's death was to appease God, and that God punished Christ (or our sins on Christ) instead of punishing us.

That part is what would make any doctrine of Atonement theoretical and based on human philosophy.

If you call your belief the Doctri e of Penal Substitution while treating the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement then hood for you....sorry I misjudged your belief.

If, in fact, you do hold as a true doctrine the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement then perhaps you should re-read Scripture and abandon what is not therein.

 

[JonC]

Reference Hebrews 1:2-3, ". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; . . ."

Yes. Penal Substitution Theory fails on this one as well. Good find.