Penalsubstitutionism.

[JonC]

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.

I understand, and I even understand where you might see gaps.

The problem I have with that idea is so many read the Bible and do not see the gaps you see.

What if those gaps are not in God's Word but in man's understanding?

What if men who try to fill what they see as gaps in God's Word end up filling them with things that change the meaning of what is actually written?


When I read about the Atonement I see no gaps. I did at one time and it was difficult for me to stop trying to fill in gaps. But I found that these gaps do not really exist. God successfully gave us in His Word these doctrines.

Try this.....pretend Penal Substitution Theory is wrong and just read your Bible. Read until you get what it would mean if Scripture was complete and accurate without gaps. Once you get what that would mean then choose what to believe.

 

[Paleouss]

One of my complaints is that penal substitution theorists do not believe God can forgive sins, although they would not admit it.

Being a self taught, well, let me correct that. Being a spiritually led and not formally taught vessel of God. I am not familiar with all the little intricacies of some theological problems. Although, some theological topics I am quite adept. However, in regard to your statement... "penal substitution theorists do not believe God can forgive sins". I am not familiar with what this means. At least how you are presenting it.

From what you have written I presume you mean that if we say that sin must be punished by God before God can forgive. Then I guess I do understand what you mean. That is, you are saying that God is not bound by any law. He can do what he pleases. Is this what you are saying when you say "do not believe God can forgive sins"?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

This proves that @JonC never troubles to read posts, or, if he does, either does not understand them or deliberately misconstrues them.
Sin must be punished, but God, in His mercy, has found a way to do so and yet be merciful to sinners. 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed.' And the way they do that is by Penal Substitution.

I am heartily sick of these discussions, which have been going on for over ten years. Here is something I posted on the previous thread (or was it the previous previous thread?) which does not appear to have been understood:
'Now we know that whatever the law says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may become guilty before God.'
OK, so what does the law say?

Numbers 15:27-28. 'And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.'
So someone who sins unintentionally acknowledged his sin by bring a sacrifice, thereby also acknowledging that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission' (Heb. 9:22). And the priest would offer the sacrifice and the sinner would be forgiven.
But how about someone who sins intentionally or with a high hand?

Numbers 15:30-31. 'But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach upon the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'
It doesn't sound too good for us, does it? Yet a man like David, who had committed sins for which the law gave no atonement, could go directly to God, without the mediation of a priest and receive forgiveness, as we see in Psalm 51. Yet he too understood the need for atonement: 'Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow' (v.7). Hyssop, of course is a plant, and a bunch of it was used to daub the doorposts of the Israelites on the day of the Passover so that God would pass over them (Exodus 12:22-23). So David was pleading to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Being a prophet, he foresaw the Lamb of God who would suffer and die to take away the sin of the world, and rise again to become KIng of heaven and our great High Priest (Acts 2:22-36).

So of course God forgives, but in order to be both 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus,' the Lord Jesus had to make propitiation for our sins on the cross. So great is this salvation that God has wrought in Christ, and so far superior is it to that of the old covenant, that it embraces even those who have sinned presumptuously. '..... And by Him, everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses'

 

[Charlie24]

I understand, and I even understand where you might see gaps.

The problem I have with that idea is so many read the Bible and do not see the gaps you see.

What if those gaps are not in God's Word but in man's understanding?

What if men who try to fill what they see as gaps in God's Word end up filling them with things that change the meaning of what is actually written?


When I read about the Atonement I see no gaps. I did at one time and it was difficult for me to stop trying to fill in gaps. But I found that these gaps do not really exist. God successfully gave us in His Word these doctrines.

Try this.....pretend Penal Substitution Theory is wrong and just read your Bible. Read until you get what it would mean if Scripture was complete and accurate without gaps. Once you get what that would mean then choose what to believe.

What do you think the scholars are doing with the gaps, Jon? The unreadable that connects, and only God can provide.

I don't need to pretend, penal substitution is as real as it gets for me!

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

Sorry Charlie. You are not allowed to do this. Only @JonC has been enlightened in such a way. Read his previous posts. But you really should take his advice when he does condescend to use someone as a reference. Earlier in this thread he used:

"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)

He has a website. And if you go to his blogs, punch penal substitution into the search, you come up with 2 articles of his, from March 31 and April 1, 2021 where he takes on Tom Schreiner on penal substitution. You will find, in all fairness to him, a listing of most of the verses we have and do post regarding penal substitution, contrary to Jon's false charge above; and more important, you see that he, like Jon, just doesn't like those verses. And that is the whole problem.

Well, almost. He goes on with several unsubstantiated beliefs of his own regarding the meaning of the scapegoat as being a non-blood sacrifice, where he completely forgets that two animals were involved in the single ceremony and one was killed. And he is of that opinion that you see floating around nowadays, that "the life is in the blood" doesn't mean that shed blood means the sacrifice was killed, but that life is literally in the blood and so a sprinkling of blood or a washing away of sins is a sprinkling or a washing by life. No explanation is ever given why all those animals had to actually die, or of other verses explicitly discussing the death of the sacrifice.

I invite everyone to look at that website. It's opening page shows why I always challenge Jon to put up his supporting sources. When he does, they always look a little "off", as in Holsclaw's site, or in other cases, a lot off.

Now, in post 16, @37818 put up more verses which I agree support penal substitution. @JonC has had it revealed to him that they don't. So it's Jon's opinion, and his flaky sources that you have to go on. But of course, he also puts up good references, I guess hoping that no one really reads them or is familiar with them. And in those cases it turns out that they say other than what Jon tries to represent.

I am heartily sick of these discussions, which have been going on for over ten years.

I agree, although I haven't been on here that long. I notice fewer and fewer posters, less and less theological discussion and more and more on what Trump has just said so I am losing interest anyway. @JonC is the only active moderator and he is obsessed with attacking penal substitution. The administrators never comment or get involved in his passive aggressive antics.

I wasn't going to post any more, especially on this subject, except Jon keeps bringing my name up. And as long as he does, I will answer. He is only damaging his own credibility anyway, although the site itself is probably suffering as well.

 

[JonC]

Sorry Charlie. You are not allowed to do this. Only @JonC has been enlightened in such a way. Read his previous posts. But you really should take his advice when he does condescend to use someone as a reference. Earlier in this thread he used:

Ahhhh yes. The Ole "I can say you are wrong but if you say I am wrong then you think yourself enlightened" argument.

So you are claiming you are right and I am wrong because God gave you some special knowledge to, as @Charlie24 calls it, "fill in the gaps" of God's Word.

I have not used people as references for what I believe. I did list several theologians, a few books, and four or five theology professors as also holding this belief.

You really should shy away from ad hominem. It seems to end up causing you to make false accusations.


Did you ever find those "many" passages I rejected?

 

[JonC]

He has a website.

Yes, he has a website, a PhD, and is a professor (Northern seminary....and yes, it's a Baptist seminary).

Im not interested in his debates....or really his writings. I just found the quote spot on.


Did you ever find those "many" passages I rejected? Or did ad hominem compromise your integrity again?

 

[JonC]

.

Now, in post 16, @37818 put up more verses which I agree support penal substitution. @JonC has had it revealed to him that they don't.

Again, watch the ad hominem. You keep it up and you won't have any integrity left. Then what? You think Jesus is going to transfer some of His every time you run out of yours?

The reason that the passage does not state the Penal Substitution Theory is simply that the issue supposedly taught by the passage is not actually in the passage.

Where you and @charsee gaps to be filled in with the passage, the passage makes perfect sense - especially given the whole of the biblical text - without adding to it.

Those gaps are not in God's Word but your understanding and they cannot be filled with your anthropolatry.

I have not received the additional revelations you claim those men you follow have received. I am merely reading God's Word.



Did you find those "many" passages you claimed I rejected?

 

[JonC]

What do you think the scholars are doing with the gaps, Jon? The unreadable that connects, and only God can provide.

I don't need to pretend, penal substitution is as real as it gets for me!

I don't think they are doing anything with those gaps. I do not believe God's Word has the gaps you see (I believe the gaps are in your understanding, not God's Word).

I am not saying you are pretending that Penal Substitution Theory is correct. I know you believe the theory "fills in the gaps" God left in His Word. I am saying you are wong.


In your opinion, why can some people study the Bible and it make since while others see gaps?

 

[JonC]

This proves that @JonC never troubles to read posts, or, if he does, either does not understand them or deliberately misconstrues them.
Sin must be punished, but God, in His mercy, has found a way to do so and yet be merciful to sinners. 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed.' And the way they do that is by Penal Substitution.

I am heartily sick of these discussions, which have been going on for over ten years. Here is something I posted on the previous thread (or was it the previous previous thread?) which does not appear to have been understood:
'Now we know that whatever the law says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may become guilty before God.'
OK, so what does the law say?

Numbers 15:27-28. 'And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.'
So someone who sins unintentionally acknowledged his sin by bring a sacrifice, thereby also acknowledging that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission' (Heb. 9:22). And the priest would offer the sacrifice and the sinner would be forgiven.
But how about someone who sins intentionally or with a high hand?

Numbers 15:30-31. 'But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach upon the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'
It doesn't sound too good for us, does it? Yet a man like David, who had committed sins for which the law gave no atonement, could go directly to God, without the mediation of a priest and receive forgiveness, as we see in Psalm 51. Yet he too understood the need for atonement: 'Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow' (v.7). Hyssop, of course is a plant, and a bunch of it was used to daub the doorposts of the Israelites on the day of the Passover so that God would pass over them (Exodus 12:22-23). So David was pleading to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Being a prophet, he foresaw the Lamb of God who would suffer and die to take away the sin of the world, and rise again to become KIng of heaven and our great High Priest (Acts 2:22-36).

So of course God forgives, but in order to be both 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus,' the Lord Jesus had to make propitiation for our sins on the cross. So great is this salvation that God has wrought in Christ, and so far superior is it to that of the old covenant, that it embraces even those who have sinned presumptuously. '..... And by Him, everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses'

No,I did read your post. I said you would not admit to it.

But prove me wrong....did God punish your sins laid on Jesus or did God forgive them?


When I get tired of a topic I don't participate in that topic. It's called being an adult. When some get tired of a topic they don't want anybody discussing it. It's called being a child.

 

[JesusFan]

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".

Jesus took the full brunt of the wrath and judgement of the Father that was directed towards us, but I do not see that as being vindictive , due to Him personally, as was still sinless lamb of God, but due to in him he took upon Himself what was justly due to all of us as sinners

 

[JesusFan]

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.

You looking at this as Rome did with Luther, as they could not accept the truth that a sinner could also be declared to be in sight of God at same time a saint, as they saw he had to get to an actual place to merit his salvation

 

[JesusFan]

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.

We will be judged, punished, and condemn based upon breaking th very Law of God, by being sinners by birth. nature. and by choice

 

[JesusFan]

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.

From the very begging in the garden the main problem indeed was sinners now being separated from presence and person of God, and in Genesis 3 was when the proto gospel was first given as to how God intended to fix this issue.
What to you is the main problem if not that?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

The concept is right there in Isaiah 53, of the Suffering Servant of Yahweh, its like stating no Trinity as exact term not in our bible

 

[JonC]

Well.....we are no closer to a biblical defence of Penal Substitution Theory.

@DaveXR650 merely says I rejectd many passages posted but is unable to actually find any.

@Martin Marprelate believes God forgives the dins He punishes. And he doesn't want to participate here but doesn't have enough self control not to participate here.

@JesusFan has not explained why he believes the writers of Pierced for Our Trangressions, RC Sprole, John Piper, and John Owen rejects Penal Substitution Theory, but he knows they do because they said God punished Jesus.

@Charlie24 actually contributed in a meaningful way. He said that there are gaps in God's Word. So men have to fill these gaps for Scripture to be comprehended, and apparently these added words - although not in Scripture - become Scripture. He kown it because it was the theories of these men rather than God's Word that saved him.



I guess with the addition of these gaps God left being filled by men, @Charlie24 did get closer to some progress. Penal Substitution Theory cannot be actually defended biblically, but if we look to men who believe Penal Substitution Theory then we will be able see their additions (how they filled in these gaps) and count their words as God's Words (although I see this as anthropolatry).

 

[DaveXR650]

Did you ever find those "many" passages I rejected?

Like I said. They are on this very thread, they are in the site you yourself use as a reference. You don't like those verses or you don't agree, so you keep repeating this nutty same statement over and over.

Im not interested in his debates....or really his writings. I just found the quote spot on.

That's another thing. You found the quote spot on. So he thinks penal substitution is all about an individual sin problem and you "agree" with him by stating this:

Penal Substitution theorists minimize the sin "problem". They miss the ending because they miss the beginning.

Penal substitution theorists minimize the sin problem. Which is it?

Those gaps are not in God's Word but your understanding and they cannot be filled with your anthropolatry.

I don't know if I should be offended or not. Is that a word or just another one of your mangled texts?

When I get tired of a topic I don't participate in that topic. It's called being an adult. When some get tired of a topic they don't want anybody discussing it. It's called being a child.

That won't happen because you are obsessed with this. I don't know if the site administrator is aware of what's going on here but it is simply a fact that penal substitution is a core teaching of Reformed theology. Now, some super Calvinists like to try to exclude non-Calvinists from this by more specific argumentation, but as you can see from the responses, it is a core teaching many other Baptists, including IFB's. If you continue this, especially in your obnoxious, passive aggressive insulting way you will damage this site.

The arguments and scriptures, accompanied by references from other sources, have been sufficient for anyone to make their own decision on this. Your constant assertion that no one has any scripture except you, and that only you are allowed to deduce anything from scripture, like I mentioned with the Trinity at the beginning, is beginning to make you look really silly. Keep it up if you wish. I'll be glad to leave this discussion if you leave me out. Don't do like you did before, where you used your moderator status to then come back and comment on a thread that was closed and stop opening a thread by using references I had made earlier without my permission for continuing.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

What are you saying here, as Reformed indeed calls Jesus very God

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Psa gives to us the very basis of just HOW a Holy God can freely forgive lost sinners, while staying Holy and true to his very nature

 

[JesusFan]

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.

You are very condescending here, as you appear to be assuming that Psa cannot be found at all in bible, yet far greater minds then yours and mine have seen it past 2000 years right there