Penalsubstitutionism.

[JonC]

Ok.....continuing the discussion.

Summary of two threads thus far

No passage has been provided stating God punished Jesus instead of us
No passage has been provided stating Jesus experienced God's wrath
No passage had been provided stating Jesus died instead of us
No passage has been provided stating Jesus bore our sins instead of us

@DaveXR650 said that asking for the above in God's Word is like asking for the titke "Trinity" to be in the Bible
I pointed out I was not exoecting the title of doctrines to be there, but the doctrines themselves should.

@Martin Marprelate said that God dies not have to punish sins but can forgive them

@JesusFan said that nobody who believes Penal Substitution believes God punished Jesus
I pointed out that RC Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, and the writers of Pierced for Our Transgressions said exactly that....and they are penal substitution theorists.

 

[JonC]

One thing we need to consider is @Martin Marprelate 's position.

@Martin Marprelate told us a little about sin. He said sin is an action that we commit (in response to my belief tgat sin is much more). If I understood him correctly, he said that God must punish sins.

But more recently he said that God can forgive sins.

So there are two opposing choices because both cannot be done to the same sins (sins can be punished or forgiven....not both at the same time because one negates the other by definition).


For example, God cannot punish a theft and forgive that same theft after punishment has been accomplished.

 

[JonC]

Another issue is whether or not Penal Substitution theorists believe that Jesus suffered God's punishment for our sins.

@JesusFan said "And NO holder to Psa states Jesus was "punished" by God".

But in The Holiness of God, RC Sproul writes that Jesus "was the only innocent man ever to be punished by God."

In the book - Pierced for Our Trangressions, we read “The Lord Jesus Christ died for us . . . suffering the wrath of his own Father in our place.”

John Owen taught God punished Jesus, but emphasized it was for fault rather than guilt.

John Piper defended the idea that God was just in punishing Jesus, and said "The way to understand Jesus' substitutionary death under God's wrath is that he is doing it in such a way as to glorify or magnify the infinite worth of the glory of God." The title was even "Was God Just in Punishing Jesus".

 

[JonC]

I have read thru all of the postings, and still have never seen the answer to what happened to our sin debt we obligated for breaking law of God, and pay to the Father what His divine judgement requires

That is becaue what you are asking is not actually in the Bible.

The wages of sin is death. Sin begats death. Sin produces death. A mind set on the flesh is death.

Those things are in the Bible. You read your belief somewhere else (and no, Im not interested where).

It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment (that is in the Bible). God will judge the wicked at judgment, on the day of wrath (that is in the Bible).

But your question creates a fictional by combining two things Scripture separates into one.

Which passage speaks of a sin debt we are obligated to pay to the Father for the divine judgment He requires?

Don't bother looking for it, it is not in the Bible.

 

[JonC]

Oh....almost forgot....

@DaveXR650 was going to post the many passages I have rejected.

 

[JonC]

I ran across an interesting book, the professor observes what several here have about the Penal Substitution Theory:

"The primary problematic assumption is that penal substitution advocates see the main problem in the Bible as one of individual sin needing forgiveness." (Geoff Holsclaw)

I agree with him that this is probably the primary problem with Penal Substitution theorists (with the actual Theory, the primary problem is that it's extrabinlical).

This is one point I've already made. Penal Substitution theorists minimize the sin "problem". They miss the ending because they miss the beginning.

 

[Charlie24]

Ok.....continuing the discussion.

Summary of two threads thus far

No passage has been provided stating God punished Jesus instead of us
No passage has been provided stating Jesus experienced God's wrath
No passage had been provided stating Jesus died instead of us
No passage has been provided stating Jesus bore our sins instead of us

@DaveXR650 said that asking for the above in God's Word is like asking for the titke "Trinity" to be in the Bible
I pointed out I was not exoecting the title of doctrines to be there, but the doctrines themselves should.

@Martin Marprelate said that God dies not have to punish sins but can forgive them

@JesusFan said that nobody who believes Penal Substitution believes God punished Jesus
I pointed out that RC Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, and the writers of Pierced for Our Transgressions said exactly that....and they are penal substitution theorists.

Seeing myself as a sinner without any hope, the curse of Law hanging around my neck, the wages of sin being death (both physical and spiritual death) there's nothing I can do.

If not for Christ stepping in and becoming a curse for me, wounded for my transgressions, bruised for my iniquities, and being healed by His stripes, I would go straight to Hell.

It's the theme, not exact wording in penal substitution.

 

[Charlie24]

Seeing myself as a sinner without any hope, the curse of Law hanging around my neck, the wages of sin being death (both physical and spiritual death) there's nothing I can do.

If not for Christ stepping in and becoming a curse for me, wounded for my transgressions, bruised for my iniquities, and being healed by His stripes, I would go straight to Hell.

It's the theme, not exact wording in penal substitution.

God wants something better for us than to understand penal substitution in black and white.

He wants us to experience it in the here and now.

When you go to the foot of the Cross (figuratively speaking) and admit to God who you really are, a worthless sinner deserving of Hell, not worth His time, and truly mean it, that's when you will hear from God.

You won't need a scholar to explain it, you'll experience it.

 

[JonC]

If not for Christ stepping in and becoming a curse for me, wounded for my transgressions, bruised for my iniquities, and being healed by His stripes, I would go straight to Hell.

It's the theme, not exact wording in penal substitution.

This is the theme.....but it is also the theme of every view of Atonement.

With the Penal Substitution Theory (or comparing any theories) we have to look at what makes the Theory different.

For example, every Christian theology believes that Jesus is God. But Reforned theology is not defined as the belief Jesus is God.

It's the additional to Scripture that make Penal Substitution Theory problematic because what is added changes the meaning of what is present in the actual text of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

God wants something better for us than to understand penal substitution in black and white.

He wants us to experience it in the here and now.

When you go to the foot of the Cross (figuratively speaking) and admit to God who you really are, a worthless sinner deserving of Hell, not worth His time, and truly mean it, that's when you will hear from God.

You won't need a scholar to explain it, you'll experience it.

I agree if you remove "Penal Substitution Theory" and replace it with salvation.

The problem I see with many here is they reject Scripture in favor of a "camp" of theologians.

Look at it this way, if you are a Penal Substitution theorist how can you test your theory?

You cannot test it against "what is written" in God's Word because it is not there. It is what you believe is taught by Scripture and you can only test it against the opinions of men who also believe it is taught in Scripture. It is very subjective to human opinion.

But you are right that too many seek our some academic understanding as if that will save them. Doctrine, even correct doctrine, does not save. Jesus saves.

 

[Charlie24]

I agree if you remove "Penal Substitution Theory" and replace it with salvation.

The problem I see with many here is they reject Scripture in favor of a "camp" of theologians.

Look at it this way, if you are a Penal Substitution theorist how can you test your theory?

You cannot test it against "what is written" in God's Word because it is not there. It is what you believe is taught by Scripture and you can only test it against the opinions of men who also believe it is taught in Scripture. It is very subjective to human opinion.

But you are right that too many seek our some academic understanding as if that will save them. Doctrine, even correct doctrine, does not save. Jesus saves.

When I look back at who I was, hopelessly condemned to eternal separation from God, and who I am now, joint heir with the Son of God, I can only see love and grace.

It was penal substitution that put me there. I don't need for the Scripture to show me that. The Spirit bears witness with my spirit that it was all done through Christ, in Christ, and by Christ.

If this can't be clearly seen, then we need to take a step back and evaluate why we can't see it.

 

[Charlie24]

When I look back at who I was, hopelessly condemned to eternal separation from God, and who I am now, joint heir with the Son of God, I can only see love and grace.

It was penal substitution that put me there. I don't need for the Scripture to show me that. The Spirit bears witness with my spirit that it was all done through Christ, in Christ, and by Christ.

If this can't be clearly seen, then we need to take a step back and evaluate why we can't see it.

When I accepted Christ as my Savior, the payment of my sins (the sentence of spiritual death) was cancelled through the shedding of the Blood of Christ.

He took the penalty for me and cancelled the debt I owed to God. I think they call that penal substitution.

 

[Charlie24]

When I accepted Christ as my Savior, the payment of my sins (the sentence of spiritual death) was cancelled through the shedding of the Blood of Christ.

He took the penalty for me and cancelled the debt I owed to God. I think they call that penal substitution.

Those who fail to receive the Grace of God through faith, for whatever reason, still owe that payment for their sins.

Christ died for them too, but they failed by whatever means to meet the condition.

 

[JonC]

When I look back at who I was, hopelessly condemned to eternal separation from God, and who I am now, joint heir with the Son of God, I can only see love and grace.

It was penal substitution that put me there. I don't need for the Scripture to show me that. The Spirit bears witness with my spirit that it was all done through Christ, in Christ, and by Christ.

If this can't be clearly seen, then we need to take a step back and evaluate why we can't see it.

back at who I was, hopelessly condemned to eternal separation from God, and who I am now, joint heir with the Son of God, I can only see love and grace.

It was Jesus Christ, His work and love, the love and nercy of God that put me there. I don't need for the Scripture to show me that. The Spirit bears witness with my spirit that it was all done through Christ, in Christ, and by Christ.

I also believed Penal Substitution Theory for most of my adult, saved life. But we need to step back and look at what God said in regard to our salvation.

The difference between you and me is not salvation but that I believe God's Word is perfect and complete, revealing to us the truth of our salvation. Since God's Word makes sense without adding to it, it falls to Penal Substitution theorists to explain why additions are necessary.

 

[JonC]

Those who fail to receive the Grace of God through faith, for whatever reason, still owe that payment for their sins.

Christ died for them too, but they failed by whatever means to meet the condition.

But you cannot find verse that states that. That is my point.

You look at the lost as owing the payment for sins. That is not in God's Word.

I look at man experiencing the wages of sin as sin begats death. But I believe there is something greater than these wages because I believe it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. The lost, then, under my belief will face the judgment that is Christ-centered and experience the Second Death.

I believe Penal Substitution theorists make too little out of sin and take God's judgment against the wicked far too lightly. This cannot help but minimize the grace through which we are saved.


But the bottom line is I believe we have to trust God's Word, something that is impossible for Penal Substitution theorists to do regarding doctrine. They have a need to lean on their own understanding. I did at one time as well.

 

[37818]

Romans 5:8, But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Isaiah 53:6, All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Mark 10:45, For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

2 Corinthians 5:21, For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1 John 2:2, And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Timothy 2:6, Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

 

[Paleouss]

he said that God must punish sins.

Good morning JonC. You are very...active. . Hope you slept.

In the post I am quoting from, you present a dichotomy.

1. Either God punishes for sin
OR
2. God forgives sin

In a previous post I had delineated the judgement process out, attempting to get clarity. The two options #1 and #2 (above), I think are in the 'sentencing phase' of the justice of God. (a) punishment, penalties, wrath (Rom 4:15, John 3:36, 1Thes 1:10)... or (b) freedom, everlasting life (John 3:36).

So there are two opposing choices because both cannot be done to the same sins (sins can be punished or forgiven....not both at the same time because one negates the other by definition).

I would agree with your statement if we both agree that 1 & 2 are part of the sentencing phase. If so, then it would seem that by definition one cannot be sentenced to punishment and freedom at the same time.

Your complaint would then be, as I see it, that the saints do not receive two sentences. The first being the wrath and punishment that Christ took on, and the other being forgiven and set free. That would be receiving two sentences. Ironically, I see this complaint as something similar to the double payment argument. Not that there are two payment like in the double payment argument. But that there is two 'sentencings'.

Sentencing
Sinner = punishment
Saint = punishment (Christ takes on), and freedom (everlasting life).

Peace to you brother

 

[JonC]

When I accepted Christ as my Savior, the payment of my sins (the sentence of spiritual death) was cancelled through the shedding of the Blood of Christ.

He took the penalty for me and cancelled the debt I owed to God. I think they call that penal substitution.

You make a serious errors here. The wages of sin is not a spiritual death. Per S riptire the wages of sin is death and after this death is judgment.

You are combining two things that Scripture presents as distinct and seperate. You are also misusing the Law in a part of your comment.


Please provide the passages that state what you are talking about so we can discuss them rather than subjective opinions.

 

[Charlie24]

back at who I was, hopelessly condemned to eternal separation from God, and who I am now, joint heir with the Son of God, I can only see love and grace.

It was Jesus Christ, His work and love, the love and nercy of God that put me there. I don't need for the Scripture to show me that. The Spirit bears witness with my spirit that it was all done through Christ, in Christ, and by Christ.

I also believed Penal Substitution Theory for most of my adult, saved life. But we need to step back and look at what God said in regard to our salvation.

The difference between you and me is not salvation but that I believe God's Word is perfect and complete, revealing to us the truth of our salvation. Since God's Word makes sense without adding to it, it falls to Penal Substitution theorists to explain why additions are necessary.

This is the way I see it, Jon. God wrote the Scripture in a way that causes us to fill in the gaps, read between the lines, so to speak.

This is to draw us in, those who are willing. The rest need scholars, they need help because they're not in the Word.

I can't speak for anyone else, when I read the Scripture the Lord is speaking to me, He's pointing to this and that, mainly what He disapproves of in my life, the little things that I need to let go of. He uses the Scripture, what's taking place there and puts it on my plate.

I've learned through the years that if I heed to that correction, the Scripture opens itself and the things I can't place together become seen, understood.

I can see penal substitution as plain as this computer screen. You don't have to agree with me, it's ok, you believe what you see and can understand. For my part, I really don't care what the scholars say, the Lord dictates my intake in a balanced measure of cooperating.

 

[JonC]

Good morning JonC. You are very...active. . Hope you slept.

In the post I am quoting from, you present a dichotomy.

1. Either God punishes for sin
OR
2. God forgives sin

In a previous post I had delineated the judgement process out, attempting to get clarity. The two options #1 and #2 (above), I think are in the 'sentencing phase' of the justice of God. (a) punishment, penalties, wrath (Rom 4:15, John 3:36, 1Thes 1:10)... or (b) freedom, everlasting life (John 3:36).

I would agree with your statement if we both agree that 1 & 2 are part of the sentencing phase. If so, then it would seem that by definition one cannot be sentenced to punishment and freedom at the same time.

Your complaint would then be, as I see it, that the saints do not receive two sentences. The first being the wrath and punishment that Christ took on, and the other being forgiven and set free. That would be receiving two sentences. Ironically, I see this complaint as something similar to the double payment argument. Not that there are two payment like in the double payment argument. But that there is two 'sentencings'.

Sentencing
Sinner = punishment
Saint = punishment (Christ takes on), and freedom (everlasting life).

Peace to you brother

I work swing shift....so I post at different times. And good morning to you
.

One of my complaints is that penal substitution theorists do not believe God can forgive sins, although they would not admit it. They ultimately believe God punishes our sins on Jesus to allow the guilty escape this punishment.

I believe the Bible offers a better solution where God legitimately forgives sins by ultimately making the guilty "not guikty". This will not work with Penal Substitution Theory because of the 16th century judicial philosophy they applied to divine justice where a crime creates a deficit that must be restored. Thankfully this philosophy pretty much died out by the early 17th century, but it lives on in Penal Substitution Theory.