PSA...Found this on X today

[Zaatar71]

A propitiatory sacrifice removes the wrath of God. So the Arminian who tries to hold a PSA is saying it doesn't remove the wrath of God until man does X, Y, or Z. Now you say, oh, but you're doing the same thing because you think that we're under the wrath of God until regeneration. But the point is, from the Reformed understanding, and I believe the biblical understanding, The elect are united with Christ in his death. Now, God regenerates them at a point in time in their lives in accordance with his will and his purpose, but the certainty of their regeneration and salvation is right there in front of us. It's certain. But the Arminian is saying, no, it's not certain. It's provisional. It's put out there, but it's up to us.
Modern evangelicals who are Arminians just don't know their history and so they don't know that by holding to PSA they're literally holding to a belief that, and I said to some people they didn't understand why I was saying this, when you combine penal substitution atonement with synergistic, non-election-based concept.

James White

 

[Zaatar71]

What about, can man's actions determine what's the nature of God's knowledge of future events, and Molinism, and all the rest of that kind of wacky stuff comes in. But the point is, PSA requires atonement to be propitiatory, and propitiation means it has to be personal, which means the object of the propitiation has to be known to God. So if I'm to be united with Christ in the effect of his sacrifice, then there's a theology that has to exist behind that. God can't be running around just trying to react to man and make things work out in the end. That doesn't work.
There is a massive, the law was just back then, it's irrelevant now, Old Testament's sort of only semi-canonical, so, the penal aspect, where the holiness of God is in view, just isn't a part of much of that. So, Arminians don't have, they came up with the governmental theory of atonement, moral influence theory, Christus Victor stuff, there's all these other quote-unquote theories, which in most instances have an element of truth to them. Christus Victor, Christ is victorious over his enemies That's just a part. And moral influence?

James White

 

[Zaatar71]

 

[JonC]

Greetings JonC


I understand that you (1) differentiate the view of Penal Substitution with what the exact words of the Bible state. I also understand that you (2) believe the Atonement is a foundational doctrine. What I don't know is "how" you differentiate between the two, i.e., between P.S. and what is written.

I preached a sermon on the atonement. It went well. I woke up the next morning convicted I has traded God's Word for man's philosophy. I was a Calvinist at the time. I bought a couple dry erase boards, wrote out the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement along with supporting passage (took quite awhike). Then I erased every passage that did not actually support the theory. I was left with no passages.

"Jesus died for our sins, Jesus died for us." Penal Substitution theorists add to that "instead of us".

But the reason is what they assume.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a reformed version of Thomas Aquinas' theory (of Roman Catholic doctrine). It replaces merit with justice and Aquinas' satisfactory punishment with simple punishment. It applies a 16th century judicial philosophy to divine justice.

Does God have to punish each sin? Not according to the Bible, but He does in order to be just according to a secular philosophy that has been dismissed and only survives in religious theories.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that it is actually impossible for God to forgive sins. God can allow the sinner to escape punishment but only if somebody else is punished for the sins. Forgiveness in Scripture is very different.