Penalsubstitutionism.

[JonC]

Here is something from someone smarter than any on this board posting on this subject, myself included

Answering Four Common Objections to Penal Substitutionary Atonement - 9Marks

At the root of every caricature of penal substitutionary atonement is a distorted doctrine of God.

www.9marks.org

by Stephen J. Wellum
Stephen J. Wellum is a professor of Christian theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology.

Penal Substitution is The Heart of the Gospel

Penal Substitution is at the heart of the atonement, and therefore the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet there are other aspects that are beautifully and powerfully affirmed in Scripture and need to be presented at length so that we can properly engage with people and encourage our churches.

au.thegospelcoalition.org

Logical fallacy (appealing to authority). As an example I responded to one quote from a theologian who rejected the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. AND he was a professor at a Baptist seminary.


BUT this is EXACTLY what I have been saying (thank you for this post).

When you could not find Scripture stating your theory what did you do. Did you stop and start studying God's Word anew? No. Instead you looked up a couple of men who held the view you are parroting.


What you are doing is NOT theology but anthropolatry.

 

[JonC]

Let me make a quick correction on that last line, Jon.

For me, it's not men that step in, it's my Buddy, my Companion, the One I turn to in those times, the Comforter.

If you believe God stepped in and gave you what is not in His Word then I will say you were probably listen to the wrong buddy.

Look....I study theology at an undergraduate and graduate level. My master's degree is in theology. BUT all that time I believed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

It was not until I read Scripture as if it were without error and complete that I realized God has already given us the full revelation of His Word. There are no gaps. God gave us a complete Scripture.....not a puzzle book.


I urge you just to try it. Set aside your theory and read the Bible as if there were no gaps. When you find a gap, stop and prayerfully read the passage again. There are no gaps.

 

[Charlie24]

If you believe God stepped in and gave you what is not in His Word then I will say you were probably listen to the wrong buddy.

Look....I study theology at an undergraduate and graduate level. My master's degree is in theology. BUT all that time I believed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

It was not until I read Scripture as if it were without error and complete that I realized God has already given us the full revelation of His Word. There are no gaps. God gave us a complete Scripture.....not a puzzle book.


I urge you just to try it. Set aside your theory and read the Bible as if there were no gaps. When you find a gap, stop and prayerfully read the passage again. There are no gaps.

I have to disagree! When you read 1 Thes. 4, the resurrection according to Paul, some refer to it as the Rapture, whatever.

There's a gap, no one can deny that gap. This gap has created 3 theories pre, mid, post, where the Church is divided.

Now to fill the gap, what do you do? You are a studier, more than likely you will begin a study to find the answer, just as I would, and have.

Skip to the very end where your decision is made on the choices. What had the influence on that decision?

For me, I study all that I can find on the subject, I pray about it and wait, I wait for the answer.

Two weeks, 2 months, 2 years, in God's timing I will receive an answer.

But can you see the gap? God could have made this perfectly clear, if He wanted to. But he chose not to.

 

[JonC]

I have to disagree! When you read 1 Thes. 4, the resurrection according to Paul, some refer to it as the Rapture, whatever.

There's a gap, no one can deny that gap. This gap has created 3 theories pre, mid, post, where the Church is divided.

Now to fill the gap, what do you do? You are a studier, more than likely you will begin a study to find the answer, just as I would, and have.

I do not see these as "gsos", but there certainly are differences regarding what we want to know that is not there. And there are different interpretations about what is written in God's Word (this is appropriate).

BUT like "Trinity", "Rapture" is a doctrine.

Rapture is the doctrine that those who are alive will be caught up together with the dead in Christ, in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

The Rapture is in the text of Scripture. People may disagree about the meaning and timing. But unlike Penal Substitution Theory, it is there. We can read it. We can highlight it. We can discuss timing. But it is there.


There is no gap in Scripture. The Rapture WILL occur. BUT how and when it occurs has been debated.


AND there are doctrines we all hold that are not in the Bible. BUT these should not be foundational doctrines.

Do you know my belief on the end times, on the identity of the anti-christ, on the timing of the Rapture?

I don't have one.

 

[Charlie24]

I do not see these as "gsos", but there certainly are differences regarding what we want to know that is not there. And there are different interpretations about what is written in God's Word (this is appropriate).

BUT like "Trinity", "Rapture" is a doctrine.

Rapture is the doctrine that those who are alive will be caught up together with the dead in Christ, in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

The Rapture is in the text of Scripture. People may disagree about the meaning and timing. But unlike Penal Substitution Theory, it is there. We can read it. We can highlight it. We can discuss timing. But it is there.


There is no gap in Scripture. The Rapture WILL occur. BUT how and when it occurs has been debated.


AND there are doctrines we all hold that are not in the Bible. BUT these should not be foundational doctrines.

Do you know my belief on the end times, on the identity of the anti-christ, on the timing of the Rapture?

I don't have one.

I define the gap as missing information to the point I have to search for it. There's a reason for that missing info.

Another gap (there's only a couple of thousand, but who's counting), why does God love you so much that He gave His only Son for you?

I wouldn't advise looking for that one. But do you see the missing info.

We know who, how, when, where, but we don't know why.

There are gaps that God intentionally left for us to look for, and there are gaps that we can't know in this life.

I'm sure I could have used a different word than "gap." but from very early on in my life I found this missing info, missing in different ways, shapes and forms, and I named it the "gaps."

 

[JonC]

Skip to the very end where your decision is made on the choices. What had the influence on that decision?

In short, God.

After seminary I taught theology and preached. During this time I held Penal Substitution Theory. After seminary I continued studies and realized that the only option, if Penal Substitution Theory was correct, is Calvinism. And I was a Cakvinist for a long time.

After one sermon on the Atonement (I was a guest preacher, and the sermon was about the Atonement) I went home. The sermon went very well and was well received. BUT the next morning I awoke early with a conviction I had preached an understanding rather than God's Word.

I bought a few dry erase boards and set up in my office. My intent was to prove Penal Substitution Theory, but because of that conviction I was open to correction via God's Word. I wrote out Penal Substitution Theory and every corresponding passages. This took weeks.

Then I erased every part of Penal Substitution Theory that was not actually in those passages. Penal Substitution Theory was gone. All that was left was God's Word.

And that was horrible for me. I knew Penal Substitution Theory was a minority view, so I was tempted to grab a commentary....but I didn't. Instead I studied Scripture, resisting every urge to mentally add to the text.

Several months later (closer to a year) I had come to understand God's Word on the topic as written. It made perfect sense.

BUT I had to make sure I did not come up with a view unique to me and my understanding.

The next thing was to read what theogians who rejected Penal Substitution Theory and early church writers wrote. I started with early church writings and was glad to see they often echoed my view. Same with several scholars. One book was "Four Views of Atonement", and I found what I had "discovered" there.



From there Scripture opened up in a deeper way because I was not imposing theories onto the text.

I came to understand that sin is so much worse than Penal Substitution would allow, God's Wrath so much more terrifying, God's grace much deeper,.

 

[Charlie24]

In short, God.

After seminary I taught theology and preached. During this time I held Penal Substitution Theory. After seminary I continued studies and realized that the only option, if Penal Substitution Theory was correct, is Calvinism. And I was a Cakvinist for a long time.

After one sermon on the Atonement (I was a guest preacher, and the sermon was about the Atonement) I went home. The sermon went very well and was well received. BUT the next morning I awoke early with a conviction I had preached an understanding rather than God's Word.

I bought a few dry erase boards and set up in my office. My intent was to prove Penal Substitution Theory, but because of that conviction I was open to correction via God's Word. I wrote out Penal Substitution Theory and every corresponding passages. This took weeks.

Then I erased every part of Penal Substitution Theory that was not actually in those passages. Penal Substitution Theory was gone. All that was left was God's Word.

And that was horrible for me. I knew Penal Substitution Theory was a minority view, so I was tempted to grab a commentary....but I didn't. Instead I studied Scripture, resisting every urge to mentally add to the text.

Several months later (closer to a year) I had come to understand God's Word on the topic as written. It made perfect sense.

BUT I had to make sure I did not come up with a view unique to me and my understanding.

The next thing was to read what theogians who rejected Penal Substitution Theory and early church writers wrote. I started with early church writings and was glad to see they often echoed my view. Same with several scholars. One book was "Four Views of Atonement", and I found what I had "discovered" there.



From there Scripture opened up in a deeper way because I was not imposing theories onto the text.

I came to understand that sin is so much worse than Penal Substitution would allow, God's Wrath so much more terrifying, God's grace much deeper,.

I like your last line, I feel the same.

The majority of major doctrine in Scripture is not based on direct unmistakable evidence, but rather the flow of Scripture, The Scripture explaining the Scripture. If you know what I mean, and I think you do.

God confirms many things in the heart of man that can be confusing in the Scripture. That's why I can't lean toward my own understanding, I'm sure to fall short of the mark if I take that route.

For example, a young Christian man that loves the Lord and wants a wife, God lets us make that choice but tells us through Paul, not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That young man is to marry another Christian in the faith.

So the young man knows this but how does he know he's picked the right one? If he seeks the Lord for all of decisions as he should, he will pray and seek the Lord, and guess what, the Lord will honor that faith in Him and confirm it in the heart.

It's no different with being confused in what to believe in doctrine. You do the exact same thing that young man did and God will honor it.

There's no other way to go once you see how confused they really are who are supposed to have the answers.

 

[Reynolds]

JonC, did Christ dying provide for the salvation of the elect?

 

[Charlie24]

I like your last line, I feel the same.

The majority of major doctrine in Scripture is not based on direct unmistakable evidence, but rather the flow of Scripture, The Scripture explaining the Scripture. If you know what I mean, and I think you do.

God confirms many things in the heart of man that can be confusing in the Scripture. That's why I can't lean toward my own understanding, I'm sure to fall short of the mark if I take that route.

For example, a young Christian man that loves the Lord and wants a wife, God lets us make that choice but tells us through Paul, not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That young man is to marry another Christian in the faith.

So the young man knows this but how does he know he's picked the right one? If he seeks the Lord for all of decisions as he should, he will pray and seek the Lord, and guess what, the Lord will honor that faith in Him and confirm it in the heart.

It's no different with being confused in what to believe in doctrine. You do the exact same thing that young man did and God will honor it.

There's no other way to go once you see how confused they really are who are supposed to have the answers.

You guys would want to put me in the nut house if you heard some of the conversations I have with the Lord.

Of course, I don't hear His voice or anything like that, I'm just exercising my right to come before the Throne of God.

I've learned to be as Paul, he kept asking the Lord until he got the answer. I think the Lord likes a man/woman who won't give up and keeps searching Him out for the answers. He will never ignore true faith, but you may have to wait, learn some patience.

 

[JonC]

JonC, did Christ dying provide for the salvation of the elect?

Of course. It was through His death that we are freed from the powers of sin (the passage from which @JesusFan lifted that verse is excellent in showing both the problem and implying the "solution").

 

[JonC]

You guys would want to put me in the nut house if you heard some of the conversations I have with the Lord.

Of course, I don't hear His voice or anything like that, I'm just exercising my right to come before the Throne of God.

I've learned to be as Paul, he kept asking the Lord until he got the answer. I think the Lord likes a man/woman who won't give up and keeps searching Him out for the answers. He will never ignore true faith, but you may have to wait, learn some patience.

Only when you start playing chess with Jesus....that's where we draw the line and call in the professionals.

 

[Charlie24]

Only when you start playing chess with Jesus....that's where we draw the line and call in the professionals.

Not yet, He would have to teach me how to play.

I don't think even Jesus could be that tolerant.

 

[JonC]

I like your last line, I feel the same.

The majority of major doctrine in Scripture is not based on direct unmistakable evidence, but rather the flow of Scripture, The Scripture explaining the Scripture. If you know what I mean, and I think you do.

God confirms many things in the heart of man that can be confusing in the Scripture. That's why I can't lean toward my own understanding, I'm sure to fall short of the mark if I take that route.

For example, a young Christian man that loves the Lord and wants a wife, God lets us make that choice but tells us through Paul, not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That young man is to marry another Christian in the faith.

So the young man knows this but how does he know he's picked the right one? If he seeks the Lord for all of decisions as he should, he will pray and seek the Lord, and guess what, the Lord will honor that faith in Him and confirm it in the heart.

It's no different with being confused in what to believe in doctrine. You do the exact same thing that young man did and God will honor it.

There's no other way to go once you see how confused they really are who are supposed to have the answers.

I'd say we have to be very careful (I think more careful than you are allowing).


I look at peoole like Joyce Myer, Ellen White, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and there is nothing I can see that would lead me to believe they doubted the confirmation of God in their hearts regarding the doctrine they taught. But at the same time there is nothing that demonstrates that conviction was from God rather than their own minds. Their doctrines, although they believed them taught by Scripture, were simply not in God's Word.


Now consider my belief. Like you, I am convinced that my belief is correct when it comes to the Penal Substitution Theory. This is partly due to the conviction we spoke of, but more so because what I believe is actually in God's Word. And, obviously, when somebody sees an error it cannot be unseen.

So how can you condemn my belief when it is exactly what is written in the Bible and all I am rejecting is those things added to Scripture (those theories about the "flow of Scripture".

Catholics base their belief in Scripture and their understanding of the flow of Scripture. So do SDA. So does Jehovah Witnesses.

Do you see what I mean. I feel like I am being condemned for believing Scripture and believing the flow of Scrioture is perfectly complete in "what is written". That does not make sense to me.

When I read the Bible as a narrative (the flow of Scripture) it is what is written in Scripture.

Read Ezekiel 18 (the passage @JesusFan lifted his verse from). I think you may see what I mean, even if we never agree.

 

[Charlie24]

I'd say we have to be very careful (I think more careful than you are allowing).


I look at peoole like Joyce Myer, Ellen White, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and there is nothing I can see that would lead me to believe they doubted the confirmation of God in their hearts regarding the doctrine they taught. But at the same time there is nothing that demonstrates that conviction was from God rather than their own minds. Their doctrines, although they believed them taught by Scripture, were simply not in God's Word.


Now consider my belief. Like you, I am convinced that my belief is correct when it comes to the Penal Substitution Theory. This is partly due to the conviction we spoke of, but more so because what I believe is actually in God's Word. And, obviously, when somebody sees an error it cannot be unseen.

So how can you condemn my belief when it is exactly what is written in the Bible and all I am rejecting is those things added to Scripture (those theories about the "flow of Scripture".

Catholics base their belief in Scripture and their understanding of the flow of Scripture. So do SDA. So does Jehovah Witnesses.

Do you see what I mean. I feel like I am being condemned for believing Scripture and believing the flow of Scrioture is perfectly complete in "what is written". That does not make sense to me.

When I read the Bible as a narrative (the flow of Scripture) it is what is written in Scripture.

Read Ezekiel 18 (the passage @JesusFan lifted his verse from). I think you may see what I mean, even if we never agree.

I can see how you could feel that way. I'm certainly not condemning you for disagreeing or looking for solid Biblical proof of penal substitution.

I see lots of problems with the names you listed, but they would say the same about me. They all have a knack for ear tickling, and something to gain lies in the shadows. I have none of the above.

I would say don't worry over it, Jon, we know you love the Lord. Some require more proof than others, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's our individuality.

I can tell it's bothering you, and that in itself speaks volumes of how much you care for the Lord. So yes, I do see what you mean, and I see that you don't want to be misunderstood in your efforts.

 

[JD731]

There are only two (2) eventualities for every man living on the earth. It will be eternal death, meaning he will eventually be separated from the presence of God for ever or he will be united to God through Jesus Christ forever. On the first hand it will be eternal death and on the second it will be eternal life. There is no third option.

Jesus Christ, the son of God and the son of man suffered both physical and spiritual death on the cross. There was no mystery why he was on that cross that day. Those six hours he hung there represented both those deaths. It was spiritual and it was physical and it was in the same order that the first Adam lived and died. First spiritual and then physical death. Jesus had said in Jn 9:5 that as long as he was in the world he is the light of the world. But at noon the day turned dark and Jesus was heard crying, my God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The Spirit of God had been a resident in the body of Jesus as long as he had a body beginning in his mother's womb. The Spirit of God gave him the inward power to live a perfect life before God and man in a body like our bodies. Now the soul of Jesus, which defines his person, is separated from both God the Father and the Spirit of God while he alone paid the penalty that the law of God demanded of all sinners, which is death. Death is separation and that is all death is. Reason and logic, if Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the cross he would have had to be both separated body and soul as well as have been separated from God because that is what the law demands. Then after three hours of this darkness he called out, "it is finished." Someone would later write under the inspiration of God the Father these words;

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

The suffering is before the crown. Eternal death is in fire. It is called the second death and it will be the second and last time the unbelieving will be separated from God but it will be an eternal present tense. The first death is when a man sinned in his body. The blood of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can cleanse sin from the soul and here is the best two passages that describe it;

Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Many modern Bibles sadly does not say what I am quoting in this next passage;

Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

The first Adam brought sin into the world and the last Adam took sin away.

If Jesus Christ had not risen from the dead we would have had no hope of eternal life. Thank God he did rise from the dead.

 

[Reynolds]

Of course. It was through His death that we are freed from the powers of sin (the passage from which @JesusFan lifted that verse is excellent in showing both the problem and implying the "solution").

If no penal substitution, why an agonizing death?

 

[JonC]

If no penal substitution, why an agonizing death?

Because of our sin.

Men have died in more agonizing ways. Some have been crucified upside down. Some have been skinned alive. Many have been beaten and crucified.

The difference was that we earn death. Jesus is sinless. He suffered and died under the wages that we earn.

 

[JonC]

I can see how you could feel that way. I'm certainly not condemning you for disagreeing or looking for solid Biblical proof of penal substitution.

I see lots of problems with the names you listed, but they would say the same about me. They all have a knack for ear tickling, and something to gain lies in the shadows. I have none of the above.

I would say don't worry over it, Jon, we know you love the Lord. Some require more proof than others, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's our individuality.

I can tell it's bothering you, and that in itself speaks volumes of how much you care for the Lord. So yes, I do see what you mean, and I see that you don't want to be misunderstood in your efforts.

Thank you. My desire here is not t9 change people's mind but to talk them into reexamining their beliefs against Scripture.

I think this is something we should all do frequently.

These discussions have strengthened my belief by doing that. I had not considered the passage @JesusFan pointed to in Ezekiel, but it strengthened me in my belief (I tested it against the chapter) and it is now what I am studying in more detail.


I want the same for others, regardless of conclusion. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. Im just saying we need to constantly run back to Scripture because in this life we see dimly as through glass.

 

[JonC]

There are only two (2) eventualities for every man living on the earth. It will be eternal death, meaning he will eventually be separated from the presence of God for ever or he will be united to God through Jesus Christ forever. On the first hand it will be eternal death and on the second it will be eternal life. There is no third option.

Jesus Christ, the son of God and the son of man suffered both physical and spiritual death on the cross. There was no mystery why he was on that cross that day. Those six hours he hung there represented both those deaths. It was spiritual and it was physical and it was in the same order that the first Adam lived and died. First spiritual and then physical death. Jesus had said in Jn 9:5 that as long as he was in the world he is the light of the world. But at noon the day turned dark and Jesus was heard crying, my God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The Spirit of God had been a resident in the body of Jesus as long as he had a body beginning in his mother's womb. The Spirit of God gave him the inward power to live a perfect life before God and man in a body like our bodies. Now the soul of Jesus, which defines his person, is separated from both God the Father and the Spirit of God while he alone paid the penalty that the law of God demanded of all sinners, which is death. Death is separation and that is all death is. Reason and logic, if Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the cross he would have had to be both separated body and soul as well as have been separated from God because that is what the law demands. Then after three hours of this darkness he called out, "it is finished." Someone would later write under the inspiration of God the Father these words;

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

The suffering is before the crown. Eternal death is in fire. It is called the second death and it will be the second and last time the unbelieving will be separated from God but it will be an eternal present tense. The first death is when a man sinned in his body. The blood of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can cleanse sin from the soul and here is the best two passages that describe it;

Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Many modern Bibles sadly does not say what I am quoting in this next passage;

Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

The first Adam brought sin into the world and the last Adam took sin away.

If Jesus Christ had not risen from the dead we would have had no hope of eternal life. Thank God he did rise from the dead.

I agree with a lot here. I disagree with a few points that are not in God's Word, but I understand why you believe it is taught.

Why do you think that Jesus suffered "spiritual death"?

From what I have read there is physical death and there is the "Second death" (when death and Sheol is cast into the Lake of fire). But this "Second death" seems to be related to Judgment (which was "given to Christ", and the condemnation is that the Light came into the world and men rejected the Light).

I see that men are "flesh" and that the "flesh comes first snd then the spirit". And that men, being flesh, are soiritually dead and in need of being "born of the Spirit". But I cannot find any references to "dying spiritually".

It seems that spiritual life is eternal life (that once one is made alive spiritually they never die spiritually).


Will you provide the passages related to this so that I can see what I'm missing?

 

[Charlie24]

Thank you. My desire here is not t9 change people's mind but to talk them into reexamining their beliefs against Scripture.

I think this is something we should all do frequently.

These discussions have strengthened my belief by doing that. I had not considered the passage @JesusFan pointed to in Ezekiel, but it strengthened me in my belief (I tested it against the chapter) and it is now what I am studying in more detail.


I want the same for others, regardless of conclusion. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. Im just saying we need to constantly run back to Scripture because in this life we see dimly as through glass.

Christ was severely beaten before nailed to the Cross, I can't imagine a more agonizing death.

He suffered in man's place for the most vilest of sins, all of it placed on Him and for all time.