Penal Substitution.

[JesusFan]

Now you are adding to Scripture.

the Cup that Jesus desired to pass from him tasting was the stored up wrath of God towards sins and sinners, which meant tasting in full that deserved wrath and judgement!

 

[JonC]

Try not to be silly. Learn about types and then come back with something sensible..
And It will be helpful if you will address my posts #43 and #105 concerning Christ's roles as Mediator and Surety.

You miss the point.

The OT sacrifices are a type.

The sacrifice is symbolic of Christ bearing our sins.

Where you venture into paganism is in the idea man's sins are transfered to the goat (that was your argument when I said sins are not transfered).

The sacrificial lamb was symbolic of Christ. The animal was sacrificed for the sins of the people. The animal died because of the people's sins. BUT their sins were not transfered from them (God, in His forebearance, passed over their sins).

 

[JesusFan]

I think we both know the cry "it's the clear teaching" the "plain teaching" and "the obvious meaning" is a fallacy most often put forward by those who cannot support their views.

Either you believe Aaron transfered sins to animals or you do not. You cannot have it both ways.

We all know what you are going to do. You will post passage after passage that does not state your position and then tell us what those passages "really mean".

It does not work that way.

The main question here is why you believe God must punish sinful actions even if not punishing the person who committed the action.

Jesus bearing out deserve wrath and judgement in out stead is NOT God punishing him, but do to Him being the Sin bearer!

So Psa does NOT see Jesus as being punished by the father, but as the one who submitted to being judged and tasting wrath for our sake!

 

[JonC]

Jesus bearing out deserve wrath and judgement in out stead is NOT God punishing him, but do to Him being the Sin bearer!

That is unbilical. Christ bore our sin bodily. Christ suffered and died, He was whipped, had a crown of thorns placed on His head, and crucified. That happened to Him, not to our sins.

 

[JesusFan]

What are you talking about? God's wrath will be poured out on the wicked on the Day of Judgment. What are you talking about wrath "going" somewhere?

God wrath was to be executed upon as as sinners before saved, so where did that deserved wrath go?

 

[JonC]

God wrath was to be executed upon as as sinners before saved, so where did that deserved wrath go?

?????

This is a nonsense question.

God's wrath is on the wicked. This is what the Bible calls "the wrath to come". This will happen at Judgment.

What are you talking about "where did the wrath go"???

Wrath is not a physical thing to be placed in a cabinet.

 

[JesusFan]

A transfer means something being removed from one place and put somewhere else.

God laid our iniquitiy on Christ. He shared our infirmity. He became a curse for us. The Just for the unjust.

But Scripture is clear that the wicked are accountable for their own sins, that sins cannot be transfered from one to another, and that punishing the just to acquit the unjust is an abomination to God.

Jesus enduring our justly deserved wrath and judgement as sinners is NOT God unjustly treating Jesus, as He was the Sin bearer, and while doing that was experiencing our sins impute unto him, in order to allow God to freely justify us by imputung the very righteousness of Jesus towards us!

Do you now deny imputation?

 

[JesusFan]

No. You are missing my point.

I agree with what the passage states. I disagree with your interpretation.

There are several reasons we disagree.

1. I do not believe that an animal can bear man's sins.

2. Scripture tells us sins cannot be transferred.

3. Scripture tells us that it was in God's forebearance that He passed over the sins committed during OT times.

4. Scripture tells us that God is not appeased by animal sacrifices but instead desires obedience.


Instead I believe that the OT sacrifice system was bearing witness of the New Covenant which would be written in Christ's blood.

ANY and ALL saved by God was due to the basis of Jesus being their sin bearer for them!

Just a sinner repenting, confessing, submitting to God saved none, as still must have someone to bears out sins!

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, God justifies sinners. I agree.

Look, where we disagree has absolutely nothing to do with Scripture (with the text of Scripture).

For most of my life I affirmed Penal Substitution Theory. For a large part of this time I was a Calvinist.

Where we disagree is in the presuppositions that you hold which influences how you interpret Scripture

You hold to a Reformed tradition. I no longer do.

If you want an honest discussion then you will have to look at the reasons you interpret Scripture as you do - your presuppositions. I will have to do the same.

But if you want to be honest you will have to stop the charge that those who disagree with you do not believe the Bible. That isn't it at all.

You disagree with Both reformed and majority Baptist views on the Atonement though!

 

[JesusFan]

God did inaugurate the OT sacrificial system. But you are not talking about the Hebrew religion. You are speaking about the pagan ANE practices from which God called His people (transferring sins to animals, appeasing God's by animal sacrifices, etc).

was the wrath of God "appeased and propitiated" by the death and shed blood of the Lord Jesus or Not?

 

[JesusFan]

That was what I asked you. You seem to be tying yourself up in knots. I am trying to find out what you believe. You have said that you have abandoned the beliefs you were taught at college. I think it's legitimate to try and find out what you have retained.

seems to be a combo of Moral amd Christ Victorious!

 

[JesusFan]

You misunderstood.

I abandoned Penal Substitution Theory.

I held Penal Substitution Theory long before college, and even in seminary (where we learned of other theories) I held the view (it was a conservative Baptist seminary so reading of other views of the Atonement was more of a Christian history issue rather than a theological one....Penal Substitution Theory was never questioned).

But yes, God is just and the justifier of sinners.

Do you believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead?

yes, do you hold that sinners are under the wrath of God?

 

[JesusFan]

Well.....I guess that's one way to shut down a Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement thread. Just ask why God has to punish sinful actions rather than punishing the one who committed the transgressions.

Works every time.... unfortunately.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

that passage ONLY refers to one facing capital judgement for sinning and getting executed, NOTHING to do with spiritual aspect of Calvary!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But is Penal Substitution Theory contrary to Scripture? The answer is yes, in two ways.

First, Penal Substitution theorists have to deny some passages that would contradict their theory (e.g., it being an abomination to punish the Righteous, to acquit the wicked, sins not being transferred to others, etc.).

I cannot speak to your imaginary 'penal substitution theory.' The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is in full agreement with all Scripture.
But you yourself have agreed with me that God justifies the ungodly, so He does acquit the wicked. But, of course, only on the basis of their sins being covered by Christ paying the penalty for those sins in full. Otherwise He cannot be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.
Now, punishing the righteous.
First of all, God does not take some random bloke and make him a whipping-boy for His elect. It is God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ, who has given Himself to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' If He bears our sins, it is self-evident that we do not bear them.
Secondly, you have steadfastly avoided dealing with the issue of Christ as Mediator and Surety as outlined in my posts my posts #43 and #105. Until you do so you have no credibility on this topic.
Thirdly, as I have pointed out times without number, the sins of Christ's people are indeed transferred to Him - in type in Leviticus 16; in prophecy in Isaiah 53 and as history in 1 Peter 2:24.

Second, Penal Substitution theorists miss out on what Scripture is actually teaching (what is actually written). They believe a myth over the truth of God's Word.

The myth is yours and your imaginary theory.

I can't tell you how sick to death I am with carrying on this debate. I think I would as soon stick pins in my eyes. But so many people have thanked me for standing up for the truth and asked me to keep going that I would be letting them down if I stopped. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is far more important that Calvinism vs Arminianism or the issue of Dispensationalism. If Justification by faith Alone is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, then Penal Substitution runs it a very close second.

 

[JesusFan]

That is unbilical. Christ bore our sin bodily. Christ suffered and died, He was whipped, had a crown of thorns placed on His head, and crucified. That happened to Him, not to our sins.

he bore our sins, and he tasted our deserved wrath and judgement, who placed jesus upon that Cross, who was the one smiting him?

 

[JesusFan]

I cannot speak to your imaginary 'penal substitution theory.' The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is in full agreement with all Scripture.
But you yourself have agreed with me that God justifies the ungodly, so He does acquit the wicked. But, of course, only on the basis of their sins being covered by Christ paying the penalty for those sins in full. Otherwise He cannot be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.
Now, punishing the righteous.
First of all, God does not take some random bloke and make him a whipping-boy for His elect. It is God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ, who has given Himself to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' If He bears our sins, it is self-evident that we do not bear them.
Secondly, you have steadfastly avoided dealing with the issue of Christ as Mediator and Surety as outlined in my posts my posts #43 and #105. Until you do so you have no credibility on this topic.
Thirdly, as I have pointed out times without number, the sins of Christ's people are indeed transferred to Him - in type in Leviticus 16; in prophecy in Isaiah 53 and as history in 1 Peter 2:24.

The myth is yours and your imaginary theory.

I can't tell you how sick to death I am with carrying on this debate. I think I would as soon stick pins in my eyes. But so many people have thanked me for standing up for the truth and asked me to keep going that I would be letting them down if I stopped. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is far more important that Calvinism vs Arminianism or the issue of Dispensationalism. If Justification by faith Alone is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, then Penal Substitution runs it a very close second.

If one denies Psa, then they are really denying Pauline justification!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You miss the point.

The OT sacrifices are a type.

The sacrifice is symbolic of Christ bearing our sins.

Where you venture into paganism is in the idea man's sins are transfered to the goat (that was your argument when I said sins are not transfered).

The sacrificial lamb was symbolic of Christ. The animal was sacrificed for the sins of the people. The animal died because of the people's sins. BUT their sins were not transferred from them (God, in His forbearance, passed over their sins).

Of course their sins were not transferred to the goat, bull or lamb. It's a type!! Goodness me! It's like trying to teach an elephant to climb a tree! Yes, God, in His forbearance passed over their sins on the basis of the antitype. That their sins would, in due time, be transferred to Christ who would bear them on the cross. Otherwise God would not be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

 

[JonC]

Of course their sins were not transferred to the goat, bull or lamb. It's a type!! Goodness me! It's like trying to teach an elephant to climb a tree! Yes, God, in His forbearance passed over their sins on the basis of the antitype. That their sins would, in due time, be transferred to Christ who would bear them on the cross. Otherwise God would not be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

When I said sins cannot be transferred you offered Aaron transferring them to a goat as proof I was wrong. I am glad you refined your view. That is why it is useful to discuss these things.

Scripture does link the OT sacrifice to Christ. Just as the animal was sacrificed for the sins of Israel, Jesus died for our sins. As you point out, this was not a transfer of sins from Israel to an animal, and neither was it a transfer of sins from us to Christ.

The OT sacrifice is applicable to explore the Cross (Paul makes use of it as well).

 

[JonC]

I cannot speak to your imaginary 'penal substitution theory.' The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is in full agreement with all Scripture.
But you yourself have agreed with me that God justifies the ungodly, so He does acquit the wicked. But, of course, only on the basis of their sins being covered by Christ paying the penalty for those sins in full. Otherwise He cannot be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.
Now, punishing the righteous.
First of all, God does not take some random bloke and make him a whipping-boy for His elect. It is God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ, who has given Himself to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' If He bears our sins, it is self-evident that we do not bear them.
Secondly, you have steadfastly avoided dealing with the issue of Christ as Mediator and Surety as outlined in my posts my posts #43 and #105. Until you do so you have no credibility on this topic.
Thirdly, as I have pointed out times without number, the sins of Christ's people are indeed transferred to Him - in type in Leviticus 16; in prophecy in Isaiah 53 and as history in 1 Peter 2:24.

The myth is yours and your imaginary theory.

I can't tell you how sick to death I am with carrying on this debate. I think I would as soon stick pins in my eyes. But so many people have thanked me for standing up for the truth and asked me to keep going that I would be letting them down if I stopped. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is far more important that Calvinism vs Arminianism or the issue of Dispensationalism. If Justification by faith Alone is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, then Penal Substitution runs it a very close second.

I thought you were more knowledgeable in theology.

In short, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement presents God as punishing our sins on Christ instead of punishing us. That is why it is a theory.

 

[Revmitchell]

When I said sins cannot be transferred you offered Aaron transferring them to a goat as proof I was wrong. I am glad you refined your view. That is why it is useful to discuss these things.

.

See this is what is wrong on this board. He didn't refine his view. He may have clarified it but clarify and refine are not eve close. You are suggesting you know that he changed his view altogether when you say refine. Just because you didn't understand him correctly the first time and then he clarified it in an attempt to break through your personal misunderstanding is not refining. He simply clarified his view. But then you already know this don't you.