The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution, part 2

[JonC]

Of course not. They clearly show penal substitution as they are written. You can't argue against them but you are too obstinate to admit that that is penal substitution.

No. You understand them to indicate PSA, but the text itself does not state PSA.

That is why you cannot, in all the passages you quoted, put in bold that Jesus died instead of us, that Jesus suffered God's wrath, etc.

What you do is blaspheme. The reason your words are blasphemous is rather than explaining how you get from the biblical text to your understanding you claim that your understanding is the text itself.


There are many instances where my understanding is not the biblical text itself. But when this occurs I explain how I arrived at my understanding and I do not lean on this understanding. When it comes to essental doctrines, these must be in the text of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Christians, who believe in PSA, have these debates as to in what way faith is a "condition", whether it itself can be described as saving, and whether it is possible to word it in any way to make it be truly considered a "work". But that's for people who all believe that the only meritorious cause of our salvation, or even the possibility of our salvation, to be the blood of Christ as a penal sacrifice on our behalf and in our stead. Don't come at me with this same juvenile stuff when you are obviously not even at the point of the merits of our salvation consisting in the work of Christ.

Your understanding that men save themselves through their work of coming to God is not as "easy" as traditional PSA (not as easy as Calvininism or Arminianism). But it is still "easy believism".

 

[DaveXR650]

No. You understand them to indicate PSA, but the text itself does not state PSA.

I guess you are right in that the words do not say "this is PSA". But now you are getting more and more unhinged and silly. You have no answer and have resorted to saying that I'm blaspheming because I believe the same way most Baptists on this board do regarding those verses. I'll forgive you even though I don't think you are supposed to do that on this board. Besides, I believe that you are very close to being a Socinian. I'd watch out for that because that is indeed a heresy. You haven't gone all the way but many of your arguments against penal substitution sound like Socinus himself.

 

[DaveXR650]

Your understanding that men save themselves through their work of coming to God is not as "easy" as traditional PSA (not as easy as Calvininism or Arminianism). But it is still "easy believism".

This is especially shameful as you are supposed to be a moderator. I nowhere said that we save ourselves, but that the term comes up in debates over the role and meaning of saving faith. And the argument, from Provisionism and from Baxter, and many Baptists who are Arminian is that the act of putting your faith in Christ is salvific, not as providing any merit, but as the link of one to salvation.

 

[DaveXR650]

And from the above, a more subtle form of debate is when some of the Puritans like Owen describe saving faith in terms that suggest that within the faith itself is an intention to obey and follow Christ. Piper tried to do a similar thing more recently and caused controversy. Others believe saving faith is simply a belief in the propositions of the gospel. But this is between PSA holders. You have to be a PSA holder or you can't get admission to this argument. Sorry.

 

[JonC]

This is especially shameful as you are supposed to be a moderator. I nowhere said that we save ourselves,

Sorry. I must have misunderstood you.

What did you mean that the requirement to be saved is "we must come to Christ"?

I am not asking you to speak for others, just what you mean.

 

[JonC]

You have to be a PSA holder or you can't get admission to this argument. Sorry.

No, this is a cult like comment. You can't argue about Mormon theology if you have left Mormonism.

I do get to explore any arguments I desire to explore.

And I allowed you the same (you reject the Doctrine of Ransom Atonement, the Doctrine of Christus Victor, the Doctrine of Recapitulation, the Doctrine of Moral Influence Atonement, the Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement, - this did not exclude you from examining their arguments).

In fact, I believe it is important for us to examine other arguments. You hold elements taught in Christus Victor Doctrine. It is good that you do. I do not say you have to restrict yourself to your own theory.


But you do bring up a very good point. Why do you think it is that PSA theorists do not believe a Christian has the right to e amine the arguments of PSA theoriests if they have abandoned the theory?

It is because they (and you) know at some level that you are leaning on your own understanding rather than the words of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

No, this is a cult like comment. You can't argue about Mormon theology if you have left Mormonism.

Don't be silly. The point you raised is an intramural argument and assumes a starting point of the belief that the blood of Christ is the only meritorious cause of our salvation. Thus the argument becomes whether using terminology like "you have to come to Christ" is attempting to add something meritorious to our salvation. If you already believe that a list of other things are required of us before you can be saved then such a specific dispute would have no meaning to you. But you of course can always comment.

 

[DaveXR650]

But you do bring up a very good point. Why do you think it is that PSA theorists do not believe a Christian has the right to e amine the arguments of PSA theoriests if they have abandoned the theory?

Once again. Why do you keep pulling this same stuff? I don't think those who don't accept PSA have no right to explore the issue. Where did you get that? Why would you go off on a tangent about the meaning of saving faith when as you keep saying, more is required for salvation?

 

[DaveXR650]

What did you mean that the requirement to be saved is "we must come to Christ"?

I am not asking you to speak for others, just what you mean.

Coming to Christ is an expression that refers to saving faith. It could also be referred to as "closing with Christ" or "uniting with Christ". The idea is to show that saving faith is more than a bare assent to the propositions of the gospel. It is that, but it is also more. But like I said, there is a very important difference in discussing this as part of coming to Christ - and a flat our belief that faith, as well as a series or system of works or sacraments is what is meant. People can be in a wide range of personal opinions of how they see this as working - and still be within the overall concept that the sole meritorious and effective cause of our salvation is the atoning work of Christ, and specifically penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

Don't be silly. The point you raised is an intramural argument and assumes a starting point of the belief that the blood of Christ is the only meritorious cause of our salvation. Thus the argument becomes whether using terminology like "you have to come to Christ" is attempting to add something meritorious to our salvation. If you already believe that a list of other things are required of us before you can be saved then such a specific dispute would have no meaning to you. But you of course can always comment.

I do believe that salvation is in Christ alone, if that is what you mean. And it is only by His blood that we are cleansed.

I was asking you to clarify your statement -nothing more and nothing less.

I disagree that we should limit our discussion to those who hold our positions. Nothing is gained in echo chambers.

 

[JonC]

Once again. Why do you keep pulling this same stuff? I don't think those who don't accept PSA have no right to explore the issue. Where did you get that? Why would you go off on a tangent about the meaning of saving faith when as you keep saying, more is required for salvation?

I got that because you said that without holding PSA one does not get admission to those arguments (how you view men choosing God).


If you can't answer that is fine. But it calls into question the validity of your belief.

 

[JonC]

Coming to Christ is an expression that refers to saving faith. It could also be referred to as "closing with Christ" or "uniting with Christ". The idea is to show that saving faith is more than a bare assent to the propositions of the gospel. It is that, but it is also more. But like I said, there is a very important difference in discussing this as part of coming to Christ - and a flat our belief that faith, as well as a series or system of works or sacraments is what is meant. People can be in a wide range of personal opinions of how they see this as working - and still be within the overall concept that the sole meritorious and effective cause of our salvation is the atoning work of Christ, and specifically penal substitution.

I believe that our salvation is dependent, not in part but in full, on the work of Christ on the Cross. Period.

The question is how we become partakers. This is where PSA is "easy believism".

What must you do for your sins to be forgiven?

Say you beat up a little girl because she stepped on your lawn. How are you forgiven that sin?

 

[JonC]

With this thread nobody has shown a biblical basis for PSA.

What has been shown is a theory and PSA theorists going to the Bible in order to support their hypothesis.

PSA will always be a theory because it is the human understanding of a sect of professing Christians but it is not in the biblical text itself. It does not pass that test.

If the judicial philosophy of PSA theorists is wrong (if, as Calvin put it, viewing the role of a judge to be a vindication of the Law, a punishment for every crime, is incorrect then PSA is incorrect).


One can not prove PSA using Scripture and one cannot prove the elements upon which PSA was built because PSA is not in the biblical text itself and the elements are controversial secular philosophies.

 

[DaveXR650]

I disagree that we should limit our discussion to those who hold our positions. Nothing is gained in echo chambers.

I didn't say that. Why do you do this on every post? I'm talking about a discussion regarding differences that are within a common area for the purposes of the discussion. There is no reason someone who does not believe that you are saved by faith to engage in what the precise meaning of faith is. Not because we have to have an echo chamber, but because you would have no interest in such a specific discussion because you don't believe the starting premise.

 

[JonC]

I didn't say that. Why do you do this on every post? I'm talking about a discussion regarding differences that are within a common area for the purposes of the discussion. There is no reason someone who does not believe that you are saved by faith to engage in what the precise meaning of faith is.

Sure there is a reason for those who do not believe we are saved by faith to engage in a percise meaning of faith.

This is how we learn of one another's beliefs and areas where one another need to strengthen or change their own belief.

And this is an important topic. People's beliefs often intersect even when they disagree.

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe that our salvation is dependent, not in part but in full, on the work of Christ on the Cross. Period.

The question is how we become partakers. This is where PSA is "easy believism".

What must you do for your sins to be forgiven?

The first statement you make there is a complete contradiction of the third one. There is nothing you can "do" salvifically if your salvation is dependent in full on the work of Christ on the cross. If there is something you can or must "do" then your salvation is not dependent upon the work of Christ on the cross. It is a combination of the work of Christ along with things you must do. Now. I noticed you just now posted this:

And this is an important topic. People's beliefs often intersect even when they disagree.

Yes. There is intersection. That's what I was trying to say. You take Christ as Savior ----Then some say you took him as savior because you were first regenerated and then you are given faith and granted repentance. You go on to follow Christ no matter what because of the work and grace of the Holy Spirit within you. Others say you decide to believe, then you are given the Spirit, born again and then you go on to follow Christ because of the work and grace of the Holy Spirit within you. Of that latter group, some say you were first supernaturally enlightened or convicted, others say you have all you naturally need to make the right decision. There are lots of points of intersection.

Even a moderate Roman Catholic might say that you are justified initially by faith from all mortal sin, then go on to do certain things and often it sounds very much like what many of us believe except we call it sanctification, rather than further justification. And from there you have all kinds of points of intersection of belief and all kinds of differences.

Seriously, Jon, if some of the others have something they would like to say fine but I don't think anything good is going to come out of this. I should not have gotten into this again. You are on such a different wavelength that we just don't seem to connect.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I want to move on and ask some more questions:
Did the Lord Jesus pay to the Father a valuable price and ransom for our sins, as our surety or guarantor, so as to discharge the debt that we were under? Did He thereby make satisfaction to the justice of God?
1. Our Lord paid such a price or ransom. Matthew 20:28. He came, 'to give His life a ransom [Greek lutron] for many.' C.f. also Mark 10:45 where the word used is antilutron, a ransom to be accepted in the stead of others, as in 1 Tim. 2:6. By this ransom we are said to be justified freely by God's grace through the ransom-paying [dia tes apolutrosis] of Christ (Romans 3:24). We 'were bought at a price' (1 Cor. 6:20) - a price exalted above silver or gold in 1 Peter 1:18.

2. He paid this price into the hands of His Father. A price must be paid to somebody to deliver prisoners from captivity - either to the Judge (God) or to the jailor (Satan). But Satan was to be conquered, not satisfied (Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:9ff). But it was God whose wrath is upon us (John 3:36). It is He whose wrath abides on us (John 3:36); it is He who has confined us all under sin (Gal. 3:22); He is the one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy (James 4:12). Therefore, Christ has given Himself as 'an offering and a sacrifice to God...' and His soul to be 'an offering for sin' (Isaiah 53:10).

3. He did this as our Surety or Guarantor. He has become a 'Surety of a better covenant' (Heb. 7:22). A surety is one who guarantees a debt for someone else, and if that someone defaults on the payment, the surety is required to make payment in full as if he were the debtor even if he has never been in debt to anyone in his life. 'Though I have stolen nothing, I still must restore it' (Psalm 66:4, clearly a Messianic Psalm, cf. vs. 9, 21).

4. Did He make satisfaction to the justice of God by all this? Yes He did. According to Romans 3:24-25, we are justified freely by the ransom-paying of Christ, whom God set forth as a propitiation, an atonement, mercy seat, covering for sin, and the purpose of this is to demonstrate God's righeousness, both in the past and in the presnt (v.26). In Heb. 2:17, the Lord Jesus is said to be 'a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God to make propitiation for the sins of the people.' A 'propitiation' is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. God is propitiated by the offering of Christ. Therefore we are told in Romans 5:11 that through our Lord Jesus, 'we have now received the reconciliation.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

With this thread nobody has shown a biblical basis for PSA.

That is not for you to say. Others (if anyone is actually reading it all) will make a decision on that.

 

[JonC]

That is not for you to say. Others (if anyone is actually reading it all) will make a decision on that.

It is for me to say.

A biblical basis means the basis itself is the Bible. This is not ture of PSA where Scripture is viewed through a basis of a particular judicial philosophy.

If the basis is wrong - that philosophy - then PSA falls apart but Scripture remains.