The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

[Yeshua1]

So you think penal substitution was just a means to an end? But without the Incarnation and ministry of Christ you would have no cross. Maybe you'd favor the Moral Influence Theory.

It all works together. Why elevate one truth to demean another?

Just saying ha the method God choose to us eto get everything accomplished fo us was the PST, as that is the primary biblical view of the atonement!

 

[JonC]

I was just askin if we could go to a conversation on Him, as some do seem to align with him here, without knowing it!

We could, but I don't know that it would be on topic here. Barth did emphasize that the Word became flesh (and made man's situation his own). And he did seem apprehensive to call Jesus bearing the full consequence of our sin real punishment. But those views are common to Christian theology, and did not originate with Barth. So it is probably a topic for a different thread. I don't mind discussing Barth, but just like with N.T. Wright, I am not a student of the man. There are probably others here who are more knowledgeable than I on Barth.

 

[JonC]

Just saying ha the method God choose to us eto get everything accomplished fo us was the PST, as that is the primary biblical view of the atonement!

No, not at all. You can't take one part and say "this is the most important part" or the "primary view". I suppose one could easily make a case that submissive obedience of the Son is the "primary" biblical view as well. It is how God accomplished redemption, after all. And it is the one aspect that is emphasized throughout Scripture (for example, in the passage I provided Paul does not even mention God's wrath, or sin, but he does mention the obedience of Christ).

If you spend your whole life looking at Scripture through one truth, then you never see anything else. Your understanding of the Atonement will never be anything beyond a legal transaction centered on man and God's need to expend the wrath his justice harbors. What holds it all together is not the justice of God (again, not denying the justice of God) but the love of God.

In other words, I do not deny limited atonement but I deny your limited view of Atonement.

Why do you believe that the main focus of the atonement needs to be on the punishment of God rather than other biblical aspects (like faithful obedience, victory over death and sin, the New Covenant, the Resurrection, the "Kingdom of God", etc.)?

What exactly are your arguments against my position, except that it is not yours? Is there even one passage of Scripture that calls into question my view? If so, what is it?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 7 AM Pacific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

JonC,
I'm not going to find the time to answer your post until Monday, by which time this thread will be closed.
My apologies for this; I am still interested in pursuing the matter a little further, so I will reply to you in a new thread in due course.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, not at all. You can't take one part and say "this is the most important part" or the "primary view". I suppose one could easily make a case that submissive obedience of the Son is the "primary" biblical view as well. It is how God accomplished redemption, after all. And it is the one aspect that is emphasized throughout Scripture (for example, in the passage I provided Paul does not even mention God's wrath, or sin, but he does mention the obedience of Christ).

If you spend your whole life looking at Scripture through one truth, then you never see anything else. Your understanding of the Atonement will never be anything beyond a legal transaction centered on man and God's need to expend the wrath his justice harbors. What holds it all together is not the justice of God (again, not denying the justice of God) but the love of God.

In other words, I do not deny limited atonement but I deny your limited view of Atonement.

Why do you believe that the main focus of the atonement needs to be on the punishment of God rather than other biblical aspects (like faithful obedience, victory over death and sin, the New Covenant, the Resurrection, the "Kingdom of God", etc.)?

What exactly are your arguments against my position, except that it is not yours? Is there even one passage of Scripture that calls into question my view? If so, what is it?

Why do you resists muh that PST is the primary biblical emphasis on the atonement of Christ forus sinners my brother?

 

[Yeshua1]

We could, but I don't know that it would be on topic here. Barth did emphasize that the Word became flesh (and made man's situation his own). And he did seem apprehensive to call Jesus bearing the full consequence of our sin real punishment. But those views are common to Christian theology, and did not originate with Barth. So it is probably a topic for a different thread. I don't mind discussing Barth, but just like with N.T. Wright, I am not a student of the man. There are probably others here who are more knowledgeable than I on Barth.

He saw God electing all snners into Jesus death, so that close to universalism, and some here take thatv iew to make all reconciled to God in a corporate sense already!

 

[JonC]

Just saying ha the method God choose to us eto get everything accomplished fo us was the PST, as that is the primary biblical view of the atonement!

l

JonC,
I'm not going to find the time to answer your post until Monday, by which time this thread will be closed.
My apologies for this; I am still interested in pursuing the matter a little further, so I will reply to you in a new thread in due course.

That sounds good. Have a wonderful weekend. I pray you will both be blessed and a blessing to your church tomorrow.

 

[JonC]

He saw God electing all snners into Jesus death, so that close to universalism, and some here take thatv iew to make all reconciled to God in a corporate sense already!

I didn't think we have universalists here, as this is the Baptist only section. But who knows.

 

[Yeshua1]

I didn't think we have universalists here, as this is the Baptist only section. But who knows.

Some seem to be advocating Jesus reconciled all back to God, and we are the ones taking us out of being saved!

 

[JonC]

Some seem to be advocating Jesus reconciled all back to God, and we are the ones taking us out of being saved!

Who advocates that idea?

 

[Yeshua1]

Who advocates that idea?

The Brother who stated that Jesus died to reconcile all humaity in a corporate sense back! That He tasteddeath for all humanity fallen flsh natures?

 

[JonC]

The Brother who stated that Jesus died to reconcile all humaity in a corporate sense back! That He tasteddeath for all humanity fallen flsh natures?

I missed that one. Sounds like a corruption of 2 Cor. 5:19.

I would like to look at the topic of this OP in more detail. Perhaps start by looking at how the OT sacrifices prove PST by showing punishment (symbolically) inflicted on the object of sacrifice. I'm interested in knowing exactly where the idea that the atoning sacrifice is punished vicariously with the punishment due the offender originated. Is it inherent in the idea of propitiation? Or is it something we reason into the sacrificial system?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 7 AM Pacific.