Penal Substitution Theory

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

What theological juggling enables you to say that crushing the Lord Jesus and putting Him to grief does not involve pain and suffering? We all know where the Lord Jesus was 'crushed' - at the cross! Did that involve no pain? Did the 'wounds,' the chastisement,' the 'stripes,' the 'oppression,' the 'cutting off,' the 'striking,' the 'pouring out of His soul unto death' involve no suffering? And who does the verse say did all that?
I know that you have previously argued that
"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" really means
"My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me."
What sleight of hand will you use to pretend that
"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief" really means
"Yet it did not please the LORD to bruise Him; He has not put Him to grief"?

 

[JonC]

What theological juggling enables you to say that crushing the Lord Jesus and putting Him to grief does not involve pain and suffering? We all know where the Lord Jesus was 'crushed' - at the cross! Did that involve no pain? Did the 'wounds,' the chastisement,' the 'stripes,' the 'oppression,' the 'cutting off,' the 'striking,' the 'pouring out of His soul unto death' involve no suffering? And who does the verse say did all that?
I know that you have previously argued that
"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" really means
"My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me."
What sleight of hand will you use to pretend that
"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief" really means
"Yet it did not please the LORD to bruise Him; He has not put Him to grief"?

You misunderstand.

It pleased God to crush Him, to put Him to grief. You assume this was God crushing Him, putting Him to grief rather than it pleasing God to crush Him, to put Him to grief.

The reason is you start with tradition and then ho to Scripture.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

When you stick to God's Word rather than tradition you understand that evil men crushed Him, put Him to grief, but this was the predetermined will of God (Peter's sermon in Acts).

But yes, this involved pain and suffering. You asking whether it did is a foolish question.

Where you stray from God's Word is changing the ones putting Him to grief from evil men to God.

But it is really an easy mistake. I come from the same tradition as you and read into Scripture our (your current, my former) tradition. It is a part of our worldview.

Thankfully there is a movement within Reformed Theology to turn from tradition and turn to the Bible on this issue. When they do it will affect other doctrines that depend on the theory.

 

[JonC]

This is how Atonement is described in God's Word (a short summary).

Through Adam's transgression mankind was sold into slavery. God told Adam the Serpent would strike the heel of the Messiah but the Messiah would crush the head of the Serpent.

God gave Israel the Law, which included a manifestation of His righteousness (the standard by which man would be righteous). Man fails to meet the standard.

In His forbearance God set up a sacrifice system to "cover" human sin. This pointed to what would occur at the cross. Men would kill a sacrificial animal. This was God's will.

God sent His Son as a sin offering. Jesus suffered and died at the hands of wicked men. The World had its "victory" as the World's "justice" was poured out on Jesus.

But this was also God's will. It pleased God to crush Him as this was God's redemptive plan.

God forsook His Son to suffer and die at the hands of the World, at the hands of evil men, under the bondage of Satan...of sin and death. He shared our iniquity. He bore our sins, was made sin for us.

But God vindicated Jesus and raised Him on the 3rd day. The Serpent strook His heel, but He crushed the Serpent's head. He won the victory, freeing us from the bonds that held man captive.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

NKJV. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'
ESV. 'Yet is was the LORD's will to crush him; he has put him to grief.'
CSB. 'Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely.'

What actually are you pretending here? That it was the Lord's will to crush Christ, but he never got around to it? That it was the Lord's will to crush him so he got someone else to do it? Have you never heard of 'common purpose'? 1 Samuel 12:9. 'You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword.' David, of course did no such thing, but he planned and organized it. Do you think God is such a hypocrite to plan and arrange the death of our Lord and then to deny responsibility for it?
Don't be so silly.

You say, let Scripture interpret Scripture, but you don't do it. And you never dealt with Matthew 26:31 which I quoted earlier.

 

[JonC]

NKJV. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'
ESV. 'Yet is was the LORD's will to crush him; he has put him to grief.'
CSB. 'Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely.'

What actually are you pretending here? That it was the Lord's will to crush Christ, but he never got around to it? That it was the Lord's will to crush him so he got someone else to do it? Have you never heard of 'common purpose'? 1 Samuel 12:9. 'You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword.' David, of course did no such thing, but he planned and organized it. Do you think God is such a hypocrite to plan and arrange the death of our Lord and then to deny responsibility for it?
Don't be so silly. And while you're at it, don't be so smug and condescending either.

You say, let Scripture interpret Scripture, but you don't do it. And you never dealt with Matthew 26:31 which I quoted earlier.

It is never a good idea to thumb through different English translations until you find one that fits your theory.

The Lord was pleased to crush Him. This was God's plan. But I join 1,500 years of Christianity that was here before Penal Substitution Theory in rejecting the idea that God inflicted suffering on Christ. It was, however, God's will that Chriat suffer and die at the hands of evil men, under the powers of darkness.

It is ironic that so much of Calvinism depends on Augustine (Augustine....who believed the idea Christ's death appeased God).

 

[agedman]

Is it possible that some cling to PSA theory because of the familiarity and need to investigate the earliest theory of Victorious Christ and Ransom?

 

[JonC]

Is it possible that some cling to PSA theory because of the familiarity and need to investigate the earliest theory of Victorious Christ and Ransom?

Yes.

This was the case with me. The morning after I had preached a sermon I awoke with a conviction that I was wrong - that I was influenced by traditional over Scripture. I went through Scripture over the next months and realized there is not even one passage that confirms Penal Substitution Theory.

It was difficult to set aside my presuppositions and not read tradition into Scripture. But once I was able I realized Scripture is very clear without adding to it.

The earliest understanding, i.e., the actual text of Scripture, is sufficient. But it is too simple for many to accept. To them it is foolishness.

I suspect older adults will resist seeking out God's Word for what it actually says. They are far too invested.

But once we move past the false doctrine of Penal Substitution Theory so much of God's Word opens up.

 

[Iconoclast]

Christ did not appease God. Christ died under the powers of this world, under the bondage of sin and death. God vindicated Christ. All judgment has been given to Christ (John 5:22).

This is a denial of the cross of Christ as in the other threads.
Sin is against God...not the world.

 

[Iconoclast]

Propitiated is a biblical doctrine!

The position these two hold ..deny Jesus
is the propitiation by changing the meaning of the word.

 

[Iconoclast]

You misunderstand.

It pleased God to crush Him, to put Him to grief. You assume this was God crushing Him, putting Him to grief rather than it pleasing God to crush Him, to put Him to grief.

The reason is you start with tradition and then ho to Scripture.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

When you stick to God's Word rather than tradition you understand that evil men crushed Him, put Him to grief, but this was the predetermined will of God (Peter's sermon in Acts).

But yes, this involved pain and suffering. You asking whether it did is a foolish question.

Where you stray from God's Word is changing the ones putting Him to grief from evil men to God.

But it is really an easy mistake. I come from the same tradition as you and read into Scripture our (your current, my former) tradition. It is a part of our worldview.

Thankfully there is a movement within Reformed Theology to turn from tradition and turn to the Bible on this issue. When they do it will affect other doctrines that dependent on the theory.

The movement you describe is known as apostasy.

 

[Iconoclast]

NKJV. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'
ESV. 'Yet is was the LORD's will to crush him; he has put him to grief.'
CSB. 'Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely.'

What actually are you pretending here? That it was the Lord's will to crush Christ, but he never got around to it? That it was the Lord's will to crush him so he got someone else to do it? Have you never heard of 'common purpose'? 1 Samuel 12:9. 'You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword.' David, of course did no such thing, but he planned and organized it. Do you think God is such a hypocrite to plan and arrange the death of our Lord and then to deny responsibility for it?
Don't be so silly.

You say, let Scripture interpret Scripture, but you don't do it. And you never dealt with Matthew 26:31 which I quoted earlier.

You are correct here as in the last thread.They seek to suggest God does not punish sin.they repeat that God did not have to be propitiated.

 

[Aaron]

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.

Neither does he.

 

[Aaron]

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

Than presenting God as passive in the death of His Son.

God was quite active as is plainly seen in the death of the first animals to cover Adam and Eve (if you even believe they were real) and in the types and shadows of the law. It was the priests that killed the victims, and sprinkled the blood, and divided and burned and consumed the sacrifices.

Christ is the offerer, the offering, the priest, and the altar.

So far from being passive, it is by a direct and determined act of God, that His standard of justice was met, that His will that was satisfied, and that His own wrath was quenched in the sufferings of Christ.

The "World's" standards? Me and Jesus can't stop laughing.

 

[JonC]

Than presenting God as passive in the death of His Son.

God was quite active as is plainly seen in the death of the first animals to cover Adam and Eve (if you even believe they were real) and in the types and shadows of the law. It was the priests that killed the victims, and sprinkled the blood, and divided and burned and consumed the sacrifices.

Christ is the offerer, the offering, the priest, and the altar.

So far from being passive, it is by a direct and determined act of God, that His standard of justice was met, that His will that was satisfied, and that His own wrath was quenched in the sufferings of Christ.

The "World's" standards? Me and Jesus can't stop laughing.

That is foolishness. The Father offered His Son as a sin offering, He vindicated His Son.

Penal Substitution Theory has God vindicating Christ from His own actions (essentially calling God evil).

Try reading Scripture for what it says rather than twisting it to match your traditions.

There is a little too much Roman Catholicism in you, @Aaron .

 

[JonC]

The movement you describe is known as apostasy.

It is in the sence they are leaving Calvinism, but they don't realize this.

Once they abandon the error then Calvinism crumbles (it is based on philosophy...remove the secular humanism and you pull the rug out from under Calvinism).

 

[JonC]

This is a denial of the cross of Christ as in the other threads.
Sin is against God...not the world.

No, it is a denial of secular philosophy and an affirmation of Scripture.

Sin is against God. But all judgment is given to the Son. This Calvinism does not understand. We are freed from the bondage of sin and death by Christ's work....by the Cross.

Christ did not die to take care of sins against the world. Nobody believes otherwise. Yours is a strawman objection.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes.

This was the case with me. The morning after I had preached a sermon I awoke with a conviction that I was wrong - that I was influenced by traditional over Scripture. I went through Scripture over the next months and realized there is not even one passage that confirms Penal Substitution Theory.

It was difficult to set aside my presuppositions and not read tradition into Scripture. But once I was able I realized Scripture is very clear without adding to it.

The earliest understanding, i.e., the actual text of Scripture, is sufficient. But it is too simple for many to accept. To them it is foolishness.

I suspect older adults will resist seeking out God's Word for what it actually says. They are far too invested.

But once we move past the false doctrine of Penal Substitution Theory so much of God's Word

Than presenting God as passive in the death of His Son.

God was quite active as is plainly seen in the death of the first animals to cover Adam and Eve (if you even believe they were real) and in the types and shadows of the law. It was the priests that killed the victims, and sprinkled the blood, and divided and burned and consumed the sacrifices.

Christ is the offerer, the offering, the priest, and the altar.

So far from being passive, it is by a direct and determined act of God, that His standard of justice was met, that His will that was satisfied, and that His own wrath was quenched in the sufferings of Christ.

The "World's" standards? Me and Jesus can't stop laughing.

As a person considers any doctrine,considers different possible conclusions,you think through the teaching. There comes a point where you need to put the brakes on.
When you go past what scripture indicates...usually a theological train wreck takes place.
Denying God and His Holy law that has been broken and that sin has to be punished...by the sinner, or the Divine substitute is to go past the gospel.

 

[JonC]

As a person considers any doctrine,considers different possible conclusions,you think through the teaching. There comes a point where you need to put the brakes on.
When you go past what scripture indicates...usually a theological train wreck takes place.
Denying God and His Holy law that has been broken and that sin has to be punished...by the sinner, or the Divine substitute is to go past the gospel.

I disagree. We constantly test our doctrine.

I learned a lot of truth from Calvinism. That is why God led me there. But Christians continue to learn and God continues to lead. I am grateful He showed me the error in Calvinistic philosophy but I am also grateful He used the system to teach me.

Eat the meat, spit out the bones. But don't stop eating the spiritual meat of God's truth. Don't put on the breaks on God's leading.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, it is a denial of secular philosophy and an affirmation of Scripture.

Sin is against God. But all judgment is given to the Son. This Calvinism does not understand. We are freed from the bondage of sin and death by Christ's work....by the Cross.

Christ did not die to take care of sins against the world. Nobody believes otherwise. Yours is a strawman objection.

Have to go to work now.
John, thanks for offering your ideas.
We have both offered in part what we believe.
I need to not say much more on this.
You are projecting your own secular thoughts on all Calvinists as they have a scriptural base as MM, Aaron, and all others have pointed out.
As of now you have missed the cross based on a rejection of all aspects of the OT. Sacrificial system.

You say...all judgment is given to the Son...yes after He was the Divinely appointed sin bearer and substitute who took the sins of the elect children away. Your use of this shows a major disconnect.
You of course can hold your ideas..I caution you to return to those truths you claim to have believed as Leighton Flowers claims to have done, although no one believes his claim.

 

[JonC]

Have to go to work now.
John, thanks for offering your ideas.
We have both offered in part what we believe.
I need to not say much more on this.
You are projecting your own secular thoughts on all Calvinists as they have a scriptural base as MM, Aaron, and all others have pointed out.
As of now you have missed the cross based on a rejection of all aspects of the OT. Sacrificial system.

You say...all judgment is given to the Son...yes after He was the Divinely appointed sin bearer and substitute who took the sins of the elect children away. Your use of this shows a major disconnect.
You of course can hold your ideas..I caution you to return to those truths you claim to have believed as Leighton Flowers claims to have done, although no one believes his claim.

We agree on a lot, disagree on a lot as well. But that is why I am here - to learn of others and present my own beliefs.

I appreciate that we can continue to disagree as friends. I know you argue against me gor my benefit, and I'm sure ypu know I argue against you for yours.

I encourage you to prayerfully re-examine your beliefs against the written Word of God. You call my view secular projection, and I call yours philosophical additions.

But if you notice, my belief on this subject is what has been recorded in Scripture while yours is what ypu brlueve Scripture teaches. Thay is a huge difference.

If Scripture makes sense without adding to it, then I believe Scripture is teaching exactly what is written.


Lastly, as an encouragement to revisit the issue, I will add that the idea Christ's death was to appease God, that Chriat experienced God's wrath, was foreign to Christianity for the first 1,500 years of the Church. Not only is it not in the text of Scripture but believing it is what Scripture taught is relatively new.

This is why we can read of men like Augustine declaring even the idea that Christ's death appeased God would be a strong heresy.

I will continue to re-examine my views, and will save your responses to look over again. I hope you are able to do the same.

Take care, Brother.