Penal Substitution.

[JonC]

.

1. Christ is of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look upon iniquity means he will not justify the wicked works (failing to do judgment and justice by perverting the law) as did the scribes, lawyers and Pharisees. He refused to do judgment according to their wicked interpretations of the law.

2. Indeed God will not punish the righteous and acquit the wicked because he will always do judgment and justice. Christ willingly took our sins knowing what would be the cost and that was not just dying a physical death on the cross. To be separated from the Father would be an even greater wrath. Or do you not believe that Christ was separated from the Father?

3. Christ asking the Father, "Why has thou forsaken me?" is Christ making a definitive statement of fact. He did not ask, "Please do not forsake me." In paying for the sins of his people, as mentioned above, Christ had to pay for their sins of unbelief causing them to forsake the Father. He stood in their/our stead and was separated/forsaken by the Father as the Father had said he would do to them. Christ witnesses plainly that the Father indeed forsook him.

4. Christ also witnessed that the Father had already given him the power to lay down his life and the power to take it up again
The Father indeed did deliver him.

5 The early church knew the truth of penal substitution. John Calvin did not discover anything that the early church did not already know. Eph 3:10 says, "...that it might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God." It was already revealed

Christ is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the World. You are taking this out of context by holding that, on the cross, Christ took your sins away.

Yes, the main point of Israel being forsaken because they went after the gods of the nations is mentioned repeatedly in the old testament. Yet even here Scripture tells us God was with them. They were forsaken to chastisement (chastening). They were in bondage. But the main theme is God is faithful and would ultimately deliver them from bondage.

I agree that this is how "forsaken" and "chastisement" should be interpreted when we look at the Cross.

1. I agree Christ is of purer eyes than to behold evil and can not look upon iniquity meaning he will not justify the wicked works. In context of the he passage it means God will not condone sin (the prophet was appealing to God's righteousness).

2. I agree God will not punish the righteous and acquit the wicked. I agree Christ willingly took our sins knowing what would be the cost. I disagree that God punished His "Righteous One" in order to acquit the wicked. Instead I believe God will condemn the wicked at Judgment. Rather than an elaborate scheme involving transferring sins, punishing sins separated from the ones who committed the sins, etc. I believe God recreated the wicked (He "sprinkled clean water on them, took out their heart of stone, gave them a new spirit, put His Spirit in them). In other words, God's Word stands eternally. He will condemn the wicked, but the "solution" was simply an act of recreating men (we must die to the flesh, repent, and be made alive in Christ).

There is no need to have God playing the fool, pretending His Righteous One is a sinner. There is no need to punish sins apart from punishing the ones who committed the sins. There is no need for all the pagan philosophy inherent in Penal Substitution Theory. Men are simply reborn in Christ, where there is no condemnation.

3. I agree Christ asking the Father, "Why has thou forsaken me?" is Christ making a definitive statement of fact. Just like God never abandoned Israel when they were forsaken to chastisement, God never abandoned Christ when He was forsaken to suffer and die on the cross. Read Psalm 22 as an entire narrative (don't pick through it, start with the beginning and see how it concludeds).

4. I agree that Christ also witnessed that the Father had already given him the power to lay down his life and the power to take it up again. But Christ also said He does nothing of His own accord, but does His Father's will.
The Father indeed did deliver him.

5 The early church did know of penal substitution as aspects of Christ's work in that Christ bore our sins, the Just for the unjust, and in Him we escape the wrath to come. But what we call Penal Substitution is much more than that.

John Calvin invented Penal Substitution Theory. Calvin was a lawyer who was steeped in Humanistic Law. While his views are certainly linked to the past, particularly Roman philosophy, Penal Substitution Theory is closer to Calvin's commentary on De Clementia (on retributive justice, demands of the law, demands on judges, etc.) than it is on Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [Epistle to the Corinthians XLIX]
Irenaeus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man' ['Adversus Haereses,' v, i, 1-2]

All one has to do is read what the extracts say. There is a penalty, and Christ pays it on our behalf.
That these are very short comments is true. As I have said, the ECFs had other things on their minds. There is a lot more to the Doctrine than just a few lines, but nevertheless, it is there in embryo.

Read what those quotes actually say.

You imagine this is Penal Substitution Theory in embryo, but it isn't. That is the problem. You see what is not there. Scripture says we were purchased with Christ's blood, the Just for the unjust.

If you stop where Irenaeus and Clement stop then we would be in agreement. But you don't. You add to Scripture what is not there.

All heresies contain truth. Most of the time they contain mostly truth with a little cancer. The wolves look like sheep, not like wolves. False doctrine often appears true, until we test it against what is written in Scripture. It is the same with Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think we now need to deal with the claim that sins cannot be transferred.
I have already given Leviticus 16:21, which deals with the Day of Atonement, but here it is again: 'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
The word translated 'putting' here is nathan. It's most common meaning (1023 times in the O.T.) to to 'give.' If you give something to someone, you transfer ownership of it. You no longer have it; the recipient has it.

And so we read, 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' And again, 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness - by whose stripes you were healed.' How could the Lord Jesus bear our sins in His own body unless they were transferred to Him?

So why is this allowable? Partly because of two offices held by the Lord Jesus.
In the Scriptures we have the concept of the mediator, one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we learn that God does not impute trespasses against His people; in Christ; He has reconciled the world [believing Jew and Gentile alike] to Himself. How has He done this? Through the Mediator Jesus Christ. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….’ (v.21). The Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and made satisfaction to God for them. Therefore the message of reconciliation can be preached to all.

A similar concept is that of a surety. This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’
Christ is specifically designated in Scripture as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) and we are told that the first Adam was a ‘type [or ‘figure’] of Him who was to come’ (Romans 5:14). ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). All those in Adam perish in their sins; all those in Christ are united to Him in His perfect righteousness.

Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26).

Neither the concept of mediator nor that of surety is repudiated in Scripture. Therefore it is legitimate for our Lord to suffer and die for guilty sinners. 'For when e were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.'

 

[JonC]

I think we now need to deal with the claim that sins cannot be transferred.
I have already given Leviticus 16:21, which deals with the Day of Atonement, but here it is again: 'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
The word translated 'putting' here is nathan. It's most common meaning (1023 times in the O.T.) to to 'give.' If you give something to someone, you transfer ownership of it. You no longer have it; the recipient has it.

And so we read, 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' And again, 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness - by whose stripes you were healed.' How could the Lord Jesus bear our sins in His own body unless they were transferred to Him?

So why is this allowable? Partly because of two offices held by the Lord Jesus.
In the Scriptures we have the concept of the mediator, one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we learn that God does not impute trespasses against His people; in Christ; He has reconciled the world [believing Jew and Gentile alike] to Himself. How has He done this? Through the Mediator Jesus Christ. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….’ (v.21). The Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and made satisfaction to God for them. Therefore the message of reconciliation can be preached to all.

A similar concept is that of a surety. This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’
Christ is specifically designated in Scripture as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) and we are told that the first Adam was a ‘type [or ‘figure’] of Him who was to come’ (Romans 5:14). ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). All those in Adam perish in their sins; all those in Christ are united to Him in His perfect righteousness.

Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26).

Neither the concept of mediator nor that of surety is repudiated in Scripture. Therefore it is legitimate for our Lord to suffer and die for guilty sinners. 'For when e were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.'

Scripture does not present sins as being transfered from a man to an animal.

The sacrifice system was foreshadowing the cross, but it was obedience that God desires. And sins were not transfered from the man to the animal - those men still needed to be forgiven via Christ.

What you have adopted is the pagan ANE sacrifice system. The Jews seem to have had the same mentality during the first century. The RCC certainly had a similar idea involving personal sacrifice in the form of penance.

But the fact is God passed over those OT sins until the New Covenant. They were not transfered from man to animal. They needed Christ just as much as we need Christ.

You have misunderstood the OT, which has led you to stray from the Christian faith in the doctrine of the Cross. You are making assumptions that Scripture itself has denounced

 

[JonC]

Strange are there were FEW who argued against psa from either the reformed or Baptist tradition until very recently, when the concept of wrath of God became something seen as "pagan!"

Not strange at all, since Penal Substitution Theory depends on philosophies not articulated until Aquinas and further developed by the Reformers. The ECFs also did not argue for or against airplanes.

 

[JonC]

Here a fallacy is expressed by @Martin Marprelate .

He claims Penal Substitution Theory was present in the ECF's writings, only in embryo. The same is claimed about Scripture (Penal Substitution Theory may not be in the actual text of Scripture....what is written....but is taught by Scripture.

For some ungodly reason those who sat at the feet of Christ and learned as well as those those taught by the Apostles just didn't get it. It took 1500 years for John Calvin to find these "hidden truths" that lay in embryo.

That is the mindset of a cult. Why would John Calvin, a humanistic lawyer, be able to find this hidden truth that Christians had missed for centuries?

This is a type of gnosticism.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Perhaps it may be helpful to print out Leviticus 16:21 for the third time:
'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
It is simply no good anyone pompously saying, 'Scripture does not present sins as being transferred from a man to an animal.'. Read the text. That is exactly what it does do.
Now to be sure this is typical, a foreshadowing of the time when all the sins of His people (those given Him by God - John 6:39 etc.) would be laid upon the Lord Jesus Christ and He would bear those sins, and the curse attached to them on the cross, and by His suffering and death provide propitiation for them so that God's righteous judgment might be vindicated, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:26) and His law established (Romans 3:31).

If people really want longer screeds by the Church Fathers on Penal Substitution, I can provide them, all the way up to Pope Gregory the 'Great.' And if anyone wants to provide a lengthy refutation of PSA by a Church Father, I shall be somewhat interested to read it, but only somewhat, because we are supposed only to be interested in Scripture. And while on that subject, I am getting sick of those who claim to uphold Scripture yet cannot find so much as a verse to support their claims.

And what if Penal Substitution, as an integral part of the Gospel, was, 'The mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been revealed to His saints'? What if medieval monks were more interested in Mariolatry or Transubstantiation than Penal Substitution? Does that make the Doctrine of Penal Substitution either more or less true? Of course not!

 

[JonC]

Perhaps it may be helpful to print out Leviticus 16:21 for the third time:
'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
It is simply no good anyone pompously saying, 'Scripture does not present sins as being transferred from a man to an animal.'. Read the text. That is exactly what it does do.
Now to be sure this is typical, a foreshadowing of the time when all the sins of His people (those given Him by God - John 6:39 etc.) would be laid upon the Lord Jesus Christ and He would bear those sins, and the curse attached to them on the cross, and by His suffering and death provide propitiation for them so that God's righteous judgment might be vindicated, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:26) and His law established (Romans 3:31).

If people really want longer screeds by the Church Fathers on Penal Substitution, I can provide them, all the way up to Pope Gregory the 'Great.' And if anyone wants to provide a lengthy refutation of PSA by a Church Father, I shall be somewhat interested to read it, but only somewhat, because we are supposed only to be interested in Scripture. And while on that subject, I am getting sick of those who claim to uphold Scripture yet cannot find so much as a verse to support their claims.

And what if Penal Substitution, as an integral part of the Gospel, was, 'The mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been revealed to His saints'? What if medieval monks were more interested in Mariolatry or Transubstantiation than Penal Substitution? Does that make the Doctrine of Penal Substitution either more or less true? Of course not!

No, not really a help. This was foreshadowing Christ taking away the sins of the world.

The problem is you interpret the OT through the lens of ANE paganism. Sacrifices appeased God's wrath, man's sins are transfered to animals.

And there are similarities between ANE paganism and the Hebrew religion. Both had sacrifice systems. Both had temples.

But Scripture speaks out against ANE paganism. The Temple is foreshadowing the presence of God. The sacrifices foreshadowed redemption.

The Bible teaches that man's guilt, man's sins, are not transfered to animals but instead were passed over by God in His forebearance until the appropriate time. The Bible teaches that it is not the blood of these animals that appease Him but instead it is obedience that God desires.

Penal Substitution Theory is not a mystery hidden from Christians until the Reformation because it fails the standard by which we are to judge doctrine. It is a false doctrine.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Fourth time.
'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
No refutation, no explanation; not even any understanding. Just cheap insults, but I'm used to those..

 

[JesusFan]

If by Pauling justification you mean Scripture, then you are incorrect. We can disagree on interpretation, but my view is expressed in the actual text of God's Word while yours is not.

Therefore it falls on you to defend the ideas you add to "what is written". You can say that is what is taught, but until you demonstrate your ideas as actually being taught you are an irrelevant voice.

What you mean is I do not believe Pauline Justification as presented by the Reformers in the 16th century. And you are correct. But it does not matter because I do hold Pauline Justification as found in the epistles of Paul.

The reformers view of Pauline Justification is THE prominent Baptist position held!

 

[JesusFan]

I agree....if you add to Scripture.

Fortunately we have a rich Christian history of faithful believers who did not add to Scripture to draw upon.

The problem is rather than defending, or even offering an explanation for, the presuppositions inherent in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement those who hold that view imagine it is the main view held by Christians. But it is not.

In fact, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was not articulated until the Protestant Reformation. Prior to the Theory was another - Substitution Theory, but that theory went to great pains to explain Christ was not punished for our sins.

Without John Calvin and his studies in Humanistic Law (particularly his commentary on De Clementia) the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement would not exist today.

Not only Calvin saw it in the scriptures, but so did Luther, beza, pretty much all reformed and Baptists!

 

[JesusFan]

If Christ did not take on our sins and die for them in our stead, then why did the Father forsake him? Hab 1:13, says, "Thou are of purer eyes that to behold evil, and cast not look on iniquity..." The Father separating himself from the Son is evident in his forsaking him. This would not have been necessary had Christ not taken our sins upon him.

The very self existent Son being separated from the very self existent Father is a punishment/wrath/darkness for sin beyond our comprehension.

THAT was the very cup Jesus shrank away from in His humanity, as he knew by drinking that Cup, would experience the wrath of God and forsaken while on that Cross by the father!

 

[JesusFan]

here we go again!

there are certain folk on here, who simply do not grasp that Penal Substitution is the ONLY Biblical Teaching on the Death of Jesus Christ. they will continue to reject and deny the CLEAR Bible passages that Teach this great Truth!

Why the need for yet another thread is beyond me

They reject really Pauline Justification, the very heart of the Gospel of Christ!

 

[JesusFan]

Leviticus 16:21. 'And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.' The sins are not symbolically placed on the goat; according to the text they are actually put there. The text is typical rather than symbolic.

2 Corinthians 5:21. 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' Christ is made sin; we are made righteousness. This is what Luther called the 'great exchange.' He takes our sin upon Himself and pays the penalty for it; we receive His righteousness imputed to us. 1 Peter 2:24. 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' How could our Lord bear our sins in His body unless they were somehow transferred to Him? 1 John 1:8, 10 have nothing to say on this. But 1 John 1:9 states that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. How can He be just and forgive sins without punishment? He doesn't. Christ has paid the penalty for them in full.

Psalms 103:12. 'As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.' Amen! But Exodus 34:7 tells us that God is 'by no means clearing the guilty.' It is only because the Lord Jesus Christ has Himself removed our transgressions from us by paying the penalty Himself that God is able to be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

Great exchange was made, God the father imputed to lord Jesus our sins and due wrath and judgement, and he also imputed to us the very righteousness of Jesus!

 

[JonC]

The reformers view of Pauline Justification is THE prominent Baptist position held!

I agree.

 

[JonC]

Not only Calvin saw it in the scriptures, but so did Luther, beza, pretty much all reformed and Baptists!

Well, Beza was Calvin's pupil, so yea. Luther didn't at the start, but he did find Calvin's view persuasive. Luther often spoke of the great exchange - the Just for the unjust (which is essential to our faith).

 

[JesusFan]

Christ is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the World. You are taking this out of context by holding that, on the cross, Christ took your sins away.

Yes, the main point of Israel being forsaken because they went after the gods of the nations is mentioned repeatedly in the old testament. Yet even here Scripture tells us God was with them. They were forsaken to chastisement (chastening). They were in bondage. But the main theme is God is faithful and would ultimately deliver them from bondage.

I agree that this is how "forsaken" and "chastisement" should be interpreted when we look at the Cross.

1. I agree Christ is of purer eyes than to behold evil and can not look upon iniquity meaning he will not justify the wicked works. In context of the he passage it means God will not condone sin (the prophet was appealing to God's righteousness).

2. I agree God will not punish the righteous and acquit the wicked. I agree Christ willingly took our sins knowing what would be the cost. I disagree that God punished His "Righteous One" in order to acquit the wicked. Instead I believe God will condemn the wicked at Judgment. Rather than an elaborate scheme involving transferring sins, punishing sins separated from the ones who committed the sins, etc. I believe God recreated the wicked (He "sprinkled clean water on them, took out their heart of stone, gave them a new spirit, put His Spirit in them). In other words, God's Word stands eternally. He will condemn the wicked, but the "solution" was simply an act of recreating men (we must die to the flesh, repent, and be made alive in Christ).

There is no need to have God playing the fool, pretending His Righteous One is a sinner. There is no need to punish sins apart from punishing the ones who committed the sins. There is no need for all the pagan philosophy inherent in Penal Substitution Theory. Men are simply reborn in Christ, where there is no condemnation.

3. I agree Christ asking the Father, "Why has thou forsaken me?" is Christ making a definitive statement of fact. Just like God never abandoned Israel when they were forsaken to chastisement, God never abandoned Christ when He was forsaken to suffer and die on the cross. Read Psalm 22 as an entire narrative (don't pick through it, start with the beginning and see how it concludeds).

4. I agree that Christ also witnessed that the Father had already given him the power to lay down his life and the power to take it up again. But Christ also said He does nothing of His own accord, but does His Father's will.
The Father indeed did deliver him.

5 The early church did know of penal substitution as aspects of Christ's work in that Christ bore our sins, the Just for the unjust, and in Him we escape the wrath to come. But what we call Penal Substitution is much more than that.

John Calvin invented Penal Substitution Theory. Calvin was a lawyer who was steeped in Humanistic Law. While his views are certainly linked to the past, particularly Roman philosophy, Penal Substitution Theory is closer to Calvin's commentary on De Clementia (on retributive justice, demands of the law, demands on judges, etc.) than it is on Scripture.

In the Cross , Jesus became sin, as in the sight of the father was imputed our very sins and our due wrath and judgement!

 

[JesusFan]

Read what those quotes actually say.

You imagine this is Penal Substitution Theory in embryo, but it isn't. That is the problem. You see what is not there. Scripture says we were purchased with Christ's blood, the Just for the unjust.

If you stop where Irenaeus and Clement stop then we would be in agreement. But you don't. You add to Scripture what is not there.

All heresies contain truth. Most of the time they contain mostly truth with a little cancer. The wolves look like sheep, not like wolves. False doctrine often appears true, until we test it against what is written in Scripture. It is the same with Penal Substitution Theory.

Without the Psa, God the father cannot freely forgive and justify us lost sinners!

 

[JesusFan]

Scripture does not present sins as being transfered from a man to an animal.

The sacrifice system was foreshadowing the cross, but it was obedience that God desires. And sins were not transfered from the man to the animal - those men still needed to be forgiven via Christ.

What you have adopted is the pagan ANE sacrifice system. The Jews seem to have had the same mentality during the first century. The RCC certainly had a similar idea involving personal sacrifice in the form of penance.

But the fact is God passed over those OT sins until the New Covenant. They were not transfered from man to animal. They needed Christ just as much as we need Christ.

You have misunderstood the OT, which has led you to stray from the Christian faith in the doctrine of the Cross. You are making assumptions that Scripture itself has denounced

Our sins were imputed to Jesus, just as in the exchange the father imputed to us Jesus very righteousness!

 

[JonC]

Fourth time.
'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
No refutation, no explanation; not even any understanding. Just cheap insults, but I'm used to those..

Who offered insults????

I explained, I think very clearly, why man's sins were not actually being transfered to an animal.

Scripture tells us this. In His forebearance God passed over those sins (hint.....that is a verse). Human guilt and sin cannot simply be transfered to animals. Scripture teaches us that guilt remains on the wicked (it cannot be transfered....and again a hint - this is a passage).

I understand you believe any disagreement is an insult, but it really is not. We have to honor God's Word by not making Scripture secondary to philosophy.