Penalsubstitutalism 2

[JonC]

"and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all". Isaiah was a nice guy but always the last one to get the word.

Yes. I like Isaiah. He's one cool dude ;-)

And I agree that the Lord laid on Christ the iniquity of us all.

That is one step to leaving the theory, brother! Just dont add to it.

Christ bore our sins bodily. He bore our iniquity. These were not His own. And He suffered and did under the powers of darkness, under the bondage of sin and death.


If you are suggesting we get to pick between Isaiah thinking but not saying that our iniquity laid on Jesus means transfered from us and Ezekiel insisting that sins cannot be transferred then I'll pick Ezekiel and say you misunderstood Isaiah.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you are suggesting we get to pick between Isaiah thinking but not saying that our iniquity laid on Jesus means transfered from us and Ezekiel insisting that sins cannot be transferred then I'll pick Ezekiel and say you misunderstood Isaiah.

Well, what if we changed it to Jon's revised version to read: the Lord has laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all but the iniquity is still on us as well"? That is what you must say if there was no transfer.
This is Schreiner’s definition of penal substitution:

“The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy God’s justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested” (p. 67).

Schreiner in a way agrees with you in that it must be the "punishment and penalty" actually laid on Jesus. And truly, when you look into this, you will find that much is said about the fact that Jesus in no way became actually sinful or evil. But that the penalty and punishment (the consequences) were what literally was laid on him. And we can see that from the crucifixion and Jesus cry of "why have you forsaken me" so that is not debatable.

And I agree that the Lord laid on Christ the iniquity of us all.

That is one step to leaving the theory, brother! Just dont add to it.

Christ bore our sins bodily. He bore our iniquity. These were not His own. And He suffered and did under the powers of darkness, under the bondage of sin and death.

You can see why I think you do indeed believe key aspects of it. It seems to me that it would be a first step back for you. Sort of like the "Coming Home" show the Catholics put on.
Really. I mean what is there to add? That God was literally angry with Jesus, or that Jesus became somehow actually sinful in his own being? Those would be adding something but do not describe penal substitutionary atonement.

One thing I do notice is that you keep saying the above, over and over, yet don't have an explanation for, if you are correct, exactly what did having our iniquities laid on him do? And don't just say he tasted death for every man as if that is a difference unless you can show an advocate of the theology of PSA who does not believe that.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. I like Isaiah. He's one cool dude ;-)

And I agree that the Lord laid on Christ the iniquity of us all.

That is one step to leaving the theory, brother! Just dont add to it.

Christ bore our sins bodily. He bore our iniquity. These were not His own. And He suffered and did under the powers of darkness, under the bondage of sin and death.


If you are suggesting we get to pick between Isaiah thinking but not saying that our iniquity laid on Jesus means transfered from us and Ezekiel insisting that sins cannot be transferred then I'll pick Ezekiel and say you misunderstood Isaiah.

Jesus suffered and died by the will and plan of the father, due to being our sin bearer, not due to " powers of darkness, under the bondage of sin and death."

Well, what if we changed it to Jon's revised version to read: the Lord has laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all but the iniquity is still on us as well"? That is what you must say if there was no transfer.
This is Schreiner’s definition of penal substitution:

“The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy God’s justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested” (p. 67).

Schreiner in a way agrees with you in that it must be the "punishment and penalty" actually laid on Jesus. And truly, when you look into this, you will find that much is said about the fact that Jesus in no way became actually sinful or evil. But that the penalty and punishment (the consequences) were what literally was laid on him. And we can see that from the crucifixion and Jesus cry of "why have you forsaken me" so that is not debatable.

You can see why I think you do indeed believe key aspects of it. It seems to me that it would be a first step back for you. Sort of like the "Coming Home" show the Catholics put on.
Really. I mean what is there to add? That God was literally angry with Jesus, or that Jesus became somehow actually sinful in his own being? Those would be adding something but do not describe penal substitutionary atonement.

One thing I do notice is that you keep saying the above, over and over, yet don't have an explanation for, if you are correct, exactly what did having our iniquities laid on him do? And don't just say he tasted death for every man as if that is a difference unless you can show an advocate of the theology of PSA who does not believe that.

Jesus became in some sense like "Sin incarnate", as in when he bore for us our due wrath and condemnation the Father judged Him as being One who remain sinless and Holy in Himself, but now in sight of His father sum of all sins that His own people would ever do against Law of God.

 

[JonC]

Jesus suffered and died by the will and plan of the father, due to being our sin bearer, not due to " powers of darkness, under the bondage of sin and death."

Jesus suffered and died by the power of wicked men but by the predetermined plan of God.


Is that the passage you mean?

Jesus became in some sense like "Sin incarnate", as in when he bore for us our due wrath and condemnation the Father judged Him as being One who remain sinless and Holy in Himself, but now in sight of His father sum of all sins that His own people would ever do against Law of God.

You are doing it again. No verses. Just claims.

No. Jesus came as God incarnate. Emanuel (God with us), not sin incarnate.

You have some very strange beliefs, kinda a mixture of sayings preachers use but all jumbled up and without any biblical support.

 

[JonC]

Well, what if we changed it to Jon's revised version to read: the Lord has laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all but the iniquity is still on us as well"? That is what you must say if there was no transfer.
This is Schreiner’s definition of penal substitution:

“The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy God’s justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested” (p. 67).

Schreiner in a way agrees with you in that it must be the "punishment and penalty" actually laid on Jesus. And truly, when you look into this, you will find that much is said about the fact that Jesus in no way became actually sinful or evil. But that the penalty and punishment (the consequences) were what literally was laid on him. And we can see that from the crucifixion and Jesus cry of "why have you forsaken me" so that is not debatable.

You can see why I think you do indeed believe key aspects of it. It seems to me that it would be a first step back for you. Sort of like the "Coming Home" show the Catholics put on.
Really. I mean what is there to add? That God was literally angry with Jesus, or that Jesus became somehow actually sinful in his own being? Those would be adding something but do not describe penal substitutionary atonement.

One thing I do notice is that you keep saying the above, over and over, yet don't have an explanation for, if you are correct, exactly what did having our iniquities laid on him do? And don't just say he tasted death for every man as if that is a difference unless you can show an advocate of the theology of PSA who does not believe that.

You dont have to change the verse at all. The verse does not speak of our iniquity but on what was laid on Jesus.

We do not need to add to Scripture and we do not need to make assumptions.

I do not understand what you missed?

Laying our sins on Jesus is Jesus coming under the curse. It is Emanuel. It is Jesus being the Son of Man (Son of adam).

No, I cannot see why you believe I hold aspects of Penal Substitution Theory. Just because I believe the text of Scripture does not mean I believe aspects of the philosophy you add to Scripture.



Jesus came under the curse, came under our sins, our iniquities, as one of us (Emanuel...God with us, Son of Man, like His brethren, like us). He suffered under the wages of sin and was judged righteous, vindicated, given a name above every name, seated at the right hand of God.

It is that simple.

No secular philosophy need. No reformed Roman Catholic theology needed. No 16th century humanistic judicial philosophy needed.

God chose the simole to confound those professing wisdom.

Just read your Bible and trust what God has delivered to us in His Word.

 

[DaveXR650]

You dont have to change the verse at all. The verse does not speak of our iniquity but on what was laid on Jesus.

Isaiah 53:6 says ".... and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all".

Just read your Bible and trust what God has delivered to us in His Word.

So do that and you won't be making such confusing and contradictory statements.

Look. We keep going around in circles. I repeatedly try to exit these discussions and would be happy to since nothing new is ever said but you keep starting threads and using my site name.

The simple fact is we have a strange situation here. You are the only active moderator on a Baptist site and are in a position to cause lasting damage in a doctrinal way with your aberrant beliefs. I have tried to show that you can get to penal substitution from writings of Puritan and other Reformed writers obviously, both old and newer; but also you can arrive there from reading Free Will Baptists, Fundamentalist Baptists, Wesleyans. You find that some medieval Catholic theologians come very close, and some early church fathers also show the development of that understanding. In addition, I have explained that other aspects of the atonement are not ignored by the above groups in the way that you deny penal substitution but are covered and taught as true aspects of the atonement with the only requirement that penal substitution be a valid part of it.

Yet for you, you insist that the whole Reformation has this central doctrine completely wrong and you and you alone got it right by independent study and special revelation. You might object to that but the fact is you never, even after being repeatedly being asked, are willing to put up a specific group or organized church or denomination that believes the way you do. That leaves everyone to look for such groups - whereupon we find only modern Socinians, or those holding to liberal and unorthodox theology. You have to do better, but you have been told that and can't or won't. I don't see any reason to go on with this.

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53:6 says ".... and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all".

So do that and you won't be making such confusing and contradictory statements.

Yes. God laid the iniquity of us all on Jesus Christ His Son.

My statements themselves are not confusing and contradictory.

You are among a minority of Christians who do not see what I am saying. This is because you have trained yourself in a specific theory.

I did hold your theory, so I can see what you see. BUT I can also see what Scrioture actually states without imposing Penal Substitution Theory.

Until you can see not only your theory but also the view you now find confusing and contradictory you are in no position to choose which is correct. You are also in no position to defend your own theory as being correct.


I thought by reaching back to the Catholic doctrine of "original sin" you would understand. But rather than trying to understand you simoly defended your theory.

We bore Adam's transgression. This does not mean Adam's transgression was transferred from him.

The Second Adam bore our sins. This does not mean our sins were transferred from us.

whole Reformation has this central doctrine completely wrong and you and you alone got it right by independent study and special revelation. You might object to that but the fact

You are wrong.

1. The whole Reformation dies not hold Penal Substitution Theory. Lutherans hold "Vicarious Atonement" which is a substitution theory but not Penal Substitution Theory. The surrounding non-Roman Catholic congregations joined the Refirmation without adopting Penal Substitution Theory. Many Baptist churches today reject Penal Substitution Theory.

2. You are being dishonest with your claim that I think alone got it right. While I did arrive at my conclusion over a couple of years trying to read Scripture apart from the theory I had previously held, it is not a view I alone hold. It is a view present on Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Recapitulation....for example. Those theories hold my belief here but choose to focus on a singular aspect (I may as well, I have never discussed that far in my belief because you never grasped the basic things of the Christian faith).

Dude....if you only took Eastern Othhodox theology (they belleve my view, but also focus on Jesus undoing where Adam failed) that's 12% of the Christian population. Add to that denominations that adhere to traditional Anabaptist theology (including many Baptists).

3. You are wrong because the Refornation is not centered on Calvin, Calvinism, or Calvin's reformation of Aquinas' theory. There is very little, if you read Calvin as a theologian, that Calvin actually got right.


What you ate doing is offering an emotional response to the realization that you hold a minority view within the Christian faith, a minority view historically, and a view that is absent from God's Word. You have arrived at tge fact it is impossible for you to be faithful to Scripture because you trust in a group of men who "tickle your ears". So you have emotional outbursts.

If this were not true then you would have provided a passage stating that Jesus suffered God's wrath instead of us. You can't because your faith itself (in terms of the Cross) has absolutely nothing to do with God's Word except to go back and pick out verses to tell us what those verses "really mean".


We bore Adam's sin - not instead of but with Adam.
The Second Adam bore our sin - not instead of but with us.
It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.
Jesus bore our sins, suffered the wages of sin.
God vindicated Him, gave Him a name above every name, sat Him at the right hand of God.
He became a life giving spirit.
We will suffer the wages of sin (sin begats death) and then the judgment
We, who are in Christ, will be vindicated, justified, saved from the wrath to come.
Those who remain lost will suffer the second judgment.



Now, you can talk all the hogwash you want about God transferring our sin onto Jesus and punishing our sins there so we can be forgiven (although we'd still be guilty). You can discuss why God chose a 16th century humanistic judicial philosophy. You can try to explain how Ezekiel was when he insulted God will not transfer sins. You can try to explain how God must first punish our sins transferred onto Jesus in order to forgive those sins.

If you want to, you could even lie and say that I alone hold my view (it would be a stupid lie because several here have actually studied other theologies). But you could do it.

But at the end of the day you have been carried away by vain philosophy.

ALL I am saying is that in order to argue against a virw or even defend your view you must first grasp the opposing view. The best way to do this is to set aside your theory and read Gid's Word as if your theory were wrong.

Once Scripture (without imposing your theory or philosophy onto it) makes sence to you, even if you disagree with it, then examine both views and choose. Stop arguing from ignorance.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are wrong.

1. The whole Reformation dies not hold Penal Substitution Theory. Lutherans hold "Vicarious Atonement" which is a substitution theory but not Penal Substitution Theory. The surrounding non-Roman Catholic congregations joined the Refirmation without adopting Penal Substitution Theory. Many Baptist churches today reject Penal Substitution Theory.

You are the one who is wrong and so full of beans you don't even know what you're saying. You are always coming up with these "others" who are against penal substitution as proof of me asking you to show those who take your position and they always turn out to be bogus. This time, it's Lutherans. Well, here's a Lutheran on this subject. People can judge for themselves:

Now, to be clear. I admit we as Christendom in general are in very deep trouble. It took me 5 minutes to come up with the video on the proper view of Lutheran atonement theology but in that time I also came across a paper by a President of of Lutheran college who was completely against penal substitution, and for the common modernist, Socinian reasons, that it was sadistic, violent, and unfit for a modern person. And I freely admit that some "Baptist" groups are saying the same thing. But that's my whole reason for asking you to say who are you looking at that is doing this and agree with your "theory". I don't think you are all in with that woman but you seem really coy about identifying a real group who believes like you. If you have found some orthodox early church somewhere who holds only 1st century doctrines then who are they?

2. You are being dishonest with your claim that I think alone got it right. While I did arrive at my conclusion over a couple of years trying to read Scripture apart from the theory I had previously held, it is not a view I alone hold. It is a view present on Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory,

If you can come on here and completely dismiss all the Reformers, Wesleyans, Baptists both Calvinistic and Free will, and as I have shown correctly, Lutherans, then how in the world do you think we should take your over the top high self esteem opinion of your own study while just dismissing all of them? You are most welcome to go off in your own self absorbed ignorance but I just wish you wouldn't try so hard to confuse others.

 

[JonC]

You are the one who is wrong and so full of beans you don't even know what you're saying. You are always coming up with these "others" who are against penal substitution as proof of me asking you to show those who take your position and they always turn out to be bogus. This time, it's Lutherans. Well, here's a Lutheran on this subject. People can judge for themselves:

Now, to be clear. I admit we as Christendom in general are in very deep trouble. It took me 5 minutes to come up with the video on the proper view of Lutheran atonement theology but in that time I also came across a paper by a President of of Lutheran college who was completely against penal substitution, and for the common modernist, Socinian reasons, that it was sadistic, violent, and unfit for a modern person. And I freely admit that some "Baptist" groups are saying the same thing. But that's my whole reason for asking you to say who are you looking at that is doing this and agree with your "theory". I don't think you are all in with that woman but you seem really coy about identifying a real group who believes like you. If you have found some orthodox early church somewhere who holds only 1st century doctrines then who are they?

If you can come on here and completely dismiss all the Reformers, Wesleyans, Baptists both Calvinistic and Free will, and as I have shown correctly, Lutherans, then how in the world do you think we should take your over the top high self esteem opinion of your own study while just dismissing all of them? You are most welcome to go off in your own self absorbed ignorance but I just wish you wouldn't try so hard to confuse others.

Today Lutherans, Anglican, Mennonites, etc can be found who are penal substitution theorists.

BUT if you look at Concordia Theological Seminary (a Lutheran seminary) you will see that they advocate the traditional Lutheran view (Vicarious Substitution Theory...or Substitution Theory). Luther himself claimed no hard opinion as long as Christ died to save us.

This is what I mean by you only being interested in defending your secular philosophy.

What should you think that I reject most Reformed theologians, all Calvinist theologians, many Baptist theologians in their views of Atonement? It means I believe they were wrong to abandon God's Word. I believe the same of you.

I am not Catholic. Unlike you I am not looking for a group of men to tell me what to believe.

I have noted several I agree with in terms of the Atonement. And I have listed several I do not agree with.

BUT I do not adopt whatever people tell me the Bible teaches. I obey God and test that doctrine against what is written in Scripture rather than follow your lead and test my belief against those men who agree with me.


Do I reject the Free-Will Baptist view of Atonement? Yes, I dont agree with Wesleyan theology.
Do I reject Calvinism? Yes. I believe applying humanistic judicial philosophy to God was wrong.
Do I reject Arminianism? Yes, it is of a calvinistic trajectory.
Do I reject the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Cross? No, but I question the focus.
Do I reject traditional Ababaotist theology on the Atonement? No.
Do I reject Athanasius' view? No.
Do I reject NT Wright's view of the Atonement? No, not on the atonement itself.
Do I reject the Calvinist movement "Reforme the Reformed" as they move from Penal Substitution? We'll have to wait and see where they end up.
Do I reject how the Early Church wrote about the Atonement? No.
Do I reject the Amish view of the Cross? No.


Now....do I believe one can be a penal substitution theorist and be saved?

This is like those who do not believe Jesus is God. Can they be saved? I believe so. Jesus, not doctrine, saves. BUT it is one thing to not believe Jesus is God and another to have read it in Scripture and rejected it. Are those who reject that Jesus is God saved? I lean towards "no".

Can somebody believe Penal Substitution Theory and be saved? Yes. How I'm not sure but that was me for years. Can somebody reject Scripture and cling to Penal Substitution Theory and be saved? I wish I knew. Like you, for years the Christian view really seemed incomplete. I didn't reject it do much as it didn't make since.


For me, I'll continue to proclaime the Word of God ("what is written" ) and continue fellowship among those who share my view as we strengthen and encourage one another. Each of needs to choose who we will serve. I've made my choice. Your choice is none of my business.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are the one who is wrong and so full of beans you don't even know what you're saying. You are always coming up with these "others" who are against penal substitution as proof of me asking you to show those who take your position and they always turn out to be bogus. This time, it's Lutherans. Well, here's a Lutheran on this subject. People can judge for themselves:

Now, to be clear. I admit we as Christendom in general are in very deep trouble. It took me 5 minutes to come up with the video on the proper view of Lutheran atonement theology but in that time I also came across a paper by a President of of Lutheran college who was completely against penal substitution, and for the common modernist, Socinian reasons, that it was sadistic, violent, and unfit for a modern person. And I freely admit that some "Baptist" groups are saying the same thing. But that's my whole reason for asking you to say who are you looking at that is doing this and agree with your "theory". I don't think you are all in with that woman but you seem really coy about identifying a real group who believes like you. If you have found some orthodox early church somewhere who holds only 1st century doctrines then who are they?

If you can come on here and completely dismiss all the Reformers, Wesleyans, Baptists both Calvinistic and Free will, and as I have shown correctly, Lutherans, then how in the world do you think we should take your over the top high self esteem opinion of your own study while just dismissing all of them? You are most welcome to go off in your own self absorbed ignorance but I just wish you wouldn't try so hard to confuse others.

Thanks for that link, Dave.
If you read Luther's commentary on Galatians, and look up 3:13 and the surrounding verses, you will find that Luther was a very firm believer in the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I have posted excerpts in the past; maybe I can look them up.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for that link, Dave.
If you read Luther's commentary on Galatians, and look up 3:13 and the surrounding verses, you will find that Luther was a very firm believer in the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I have posted excerpts in the past; maybe I can look them up.

I actually agree. Luther appreciated Calvin. But Lutherans remained split (like the Lutheran seminary I prov8ded that insists Lutherans hold "Vicarious Atonement Theory" instead of "Penal Substitution Theory". They get this from Luther's earlier words.


Luther DID end up holding Penal Substitution Theory. Here is the proof (provided by @Martin Marprelate 's commentary on Galatians):

"Without any doubt, the prophets in the Spirit saw that Christ would be the greatest transgressor, assassin, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer that ever existed on earth. When He was made the sacrifice for the sins of the entire world, He is no longer innocent and without sin, He is no longer the Son of God"

Thank you @DaveXR650 and @Martin Marprelate for FINALLY letting us know what distinguishes Penal Substitution Theory from Christianity in a way we can see the stark difference.



Biblically Jesus remained holy, remIned righteous, remained the Son of God. It is precisely because His "oppression" was unjust that God vindicated Him and gave Him a name above every nsm3, sat Him at His right hand.

But here, @DaveXR650 and @Martin Marprelate draw in one of their leaders to show he firmly believed Penal Substitution Theory.

And it IS a contrast.

Biblically Adam sinned and we bore his sin with him
And we sinned ourselves.
Jesus bore our sins witg us but without sinning.
Jesus suffered the death that sin produces
It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment
Jesus died and was judged righteous, raised to the right hand of God.


@Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 want us to believe that God transferred our sins and put them on Jesus.
God punished our sins on Jesus so that He could forgive those sins He just punished.
And on the cross Jesus became a pedophile, a blasphemer, an homosexual, etc
And in the cross Jesus ceased being God's Son.
Therefore we are saved.

Those passing by....read your Bible and choose which Savior you will follow. God's eternally holy Son or a blasphemer who ceased being God's Son.

These CANNOT be just different understandings of the same gospel.