The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

[Yeshua1]

I am sorry if that offends you, but I did get to that position by Scripture alone. You don't see me quoting anyone. I admit that the terms are extra biblical but the doctrine as presented in scripture demands the terms to aptly express it. However, before using those terms I simply used biblical terms and illustrations.



I can swallow the idea that that the precise terms may not have been previously used to articulate this truth, but I totally reject that the substance of this doctrine was lost to mankind based upon Roman Catholic monks version of history. Before I was introduced to these extra-biblical terms I simply used Biblical terms but without a change of doctrine at all.




Again, you are confusing certain formulated expression with the abiding truth of the doctrine. Roman Catholicism is merely christianized paganism that has usurped and dominated secular expression of NT. Christianity, but NT Christianity has continued to exist right up to through the Reformation period distinct and separate from both Catholicism and Reformed Catholicism under the epitaph of "heretic" by harlot Rome.






Absolute nonsense! Punishment for sin is a clear Biblical concept and Gehenna is its reality apart from PST.



Sin is not a "thing" but the violation of God's Law, coming short of the "glory of God" absolute rebellion against the rule and righteousness of God.



If this were even close to truth,then it should be instilled in all who claim to be Christian but it is not! So much for your logic. I believe you are describing yourself, you are certainly not describing me. Please don't attribute to me things I don't believe are true of me. You paint with too wide of a brush which in fact, when applied according to your logic is proven wrong.

A false theory in my opinion.



Your reasoning here is oxymoronic as you are claiming scriptures are not the cause for that reasoning but such reasonings are independent of the scriptures and originate with the Reformation. I utterly deny that! My reasonings are a direct INSEPARABLE result of those scriptures.

Jon seems to base much of thi off of what NT wright ad others have stated, so would that be the same as me finding Calvin supporting PST in the scriptures then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, as I have said, I have problems with some of your posts because in one breath you say you support Penal Substitution and in the next breath you seem to be denying it, or at least, muddying the waters. However, let us proceed.

As you know, I strongly deny that PST leapt like Athene, fully-armed from the brow of Calvin. I gave you a pile of quotations from Church fathers who supported the doctrine, at least in embryo. Luther spoke of the 'Great Exchange' on the cross (our sins upon Christ; His righteousness upon us) which is certainly substitution. In the book I recommended to you, Pierced for our Transgressions by Ovey, Jeffrey and Sach, the authors give about 50 pages to the historical pedigree of P.S. and show that its development has been much more gradual than you have allowed. Calvin's work was based (to some degree) on that of Athanasius and Aquinas (amongst others), and developed by Turretine and Owen, for example.

The reason may be that the ECFs were taken up with establishing the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity and didn't give the attention to P.S. that they should. The later Roman Catholics were absorbed with the 'sacraments.' In the time of Turretine and Owen, there was a specific need to counter the teachings of Socinius, so the doctrine of P.S. needed to be honed and expounded at that time. I think most theology tends to be reactive.

Well I hope I have given you something to chew on, at least.

I am having a hard time with Jon regarding if he sees PST as the main view on death of Jesus from the Bible, if efollows Wright in this, or just what is the big difference from keeping the Law and being obededint to God, as that is same thing. correct>

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't tell me what I am saying. Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is based on Scripture. So is Arminianism. So is Calvinism. It's so simple even a caveman can understand it.

Again, are you able to defend your opinions by presenting a couple of passages that prove your theories?

Thehugh difference is that Bible support PSt as the dominentview on Jesus feath for sinners, ad no develpdby Calvin/Anshalm eyc. as they just took it from the texts!

 

[JonC]

Again, the atonement was for violation of MORAL Law.

A man trips and accidentally touches the arm of a corpse. What moral law did he violate?

 

[JonC]

That is not my point! The wrath of God was against the sinners due to their sin and the sacrifice bore the wrath of God in the place of the sinner and that is abundantly clear for the following reasons:
...Sure it does not actually state these truths but the symbolism clearly does. You are simply ignoring the symbolisms inherent in the sacrifice...

1. Death is the penalty taken out on the sinner not on sin as sin has no existence apart from the sinner - the anmial must suffer death - thus depicting the death of the sinner - thus substitution.

2. The animal is subject to FIRE which is the ultimate penalty of death.

3. The animal is offered up on a brazen altar (temple) which signifies the judgement of God's wrath against the sinner due to sin.

4. You are ignoring clear undeniable symbolism.

You are confused here. I am not ignoring anything. I have not argued against you here, I have instead asked you to explain the subjective elements of your theory. Obviously, as both Jewish and Christian positions exist that do deny your theories, they are deniable.

Prove that the sacrifice depicted the death of the sinner. Prove that God's wrath directed at the sinner was symbolically transfered upon the sacrifice.

You have thus far explained Scripture through a presupposed theory. But you have failed to prove the theory through which you interpret the atonement. If it did not come from Scripture then where?

 

[JonC]

I undestand that we can differ on this issue, as we use same scriptures and may understand them in a different fashion, but the Bible expalins Jesus Death for sinnrs directly in th PST model the best way, so we can have additional understandings, but cannot deny that as the primry way to see the Cross, as Wright and others do! Those who do alway fall backto God would be a moleste rand monster if He poured His wrath upon His own son...

Prove it. (And what's up with you and Wright? It's getting weird.)

 

[JonC]

...and the atonement represents his passive obedience in suffering the wrath of God in the place of the sinner.

Rom. 6:23 death is the CONDEMNATION for sin and death is finalized in the Lake of fire and that is the eternal wrath of God. It is symbolized in the death of the animal IN FIRE and on a BRAZEN altar.

I understand the consequences of sin. That is biblical. What passage confirms your association of the brazen altar with the punishment of Hell. Other than your own ideologies and understanding, is there a passage that states the sacrifice was "punished" with the punishment reserved for the one offering the sacrifice?

 

[JonC]

...and the atonement represents his passive obedience in suffering the wrath of God in the place of the sinner.

Rom. 6:23 death is the CONDEMNATION for sin and death is finalized in the Lake of fire and that is the eternal wrath of God. It is symbolized in the death of the animal IN FIRE and on a BRAZEN altar.

I understand the consequences of sin. That is biblical. What passage confirms your association of the brazen altar with the punishment of Hell. Other than your own ideologies and understanding, is there a passage that states the sacrifice was "punished" with the punishment reserved for the one offering the sacrifice?

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand the consequences of sin. That is biblical. What passage confirms your association of the brazen altar with the punishment of Hell. Other than your own ideologies and understanding, is there a passage that states the sacrifice was "punished" with the punishment reserved for the one offering the sacrifice?

Do you think Jesus experienced Hell upon the Cross? In thesame sense as a siner would when punished by wrath of God for sins?

 

[JonC]

Jon seems to base much of thi off of what NT wright ad others have stated, so would that be the same as me finding Calvin supporting PST in the scriptures then?

I have not based even one thing on what N.T. Wright has said. But you have dragged the guy through thread after thread. What's up with that?

So once again, prove it. What have I based on Wright?

Here is my accusation - You are gossiping and misrepresenting me. My proof is that I have not once based my position on Wright. Yet you repeat this thread after thread after thread. I am starting to think you have a "man crush" on the guy.

 

[JonC]

Do you think Jesus experienced Hell upon the Cross? In thesame sense as a siner would when punished by wrath of God for sins?

DO NOT inply that I have ever even hinted at such heresy. Hell is the second death as hades and death are cast into the Lake of Fire. What you are trying to accuse me of is the doctrine of Joyce Meyer and Kenneth Copeland.

No, I do not believe Jesus experienced Hell as the unsaved, along with Satan and his demons, will at the Judgment. I do not believe Jesus experienced "outer darkness". Instead I believe Jesus remained God's Holy One, the Perfect Lamb.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have not based even one thing on what N.T. Wright has said. But you have dragged the guy through thread after thread. What's up with that?

So once again, prove it. What have I based on Wright?

Here is my accusation - You are gossiping and misrepresenting me. My proof is that I have not once based my position on Wright. Yet you repeat this thread after thread after thread. I am starting to think you have a "man crush" on the guy.

Just am saying that how you view the atonement/Cross seemto line up pretty well with how Wrigh views it... As he is really into the odedience of Jesus as head of the Covenant model thing!

 

[Yeshua1]

DO NOT inply that I have ever even hinted at such heresy. Hell is the second death as hades and death are cast into the Lake of Fire. What you are trying to accuse me of is the doctrine of Joyce Meyer and Kenneth Copeland.

No, I do not believe Jesus experienced Hell as the unsaved, along with Satan and his demons, will at the Judgment. I do not believe Jesus experienced "outer darkness". Instead I believe Jesus remained God's Holy One, the Perfect Lamb.

I am not sayingt that you did see jesus as ceasing to be God, becomin a sinner, needing to get born again as they do, that is indeed rank heresy, but being the sin bearer and taking on the wrath of God for sins, would he not Experience for those hours on the Cross same as if he had sinnd against God? His feeling of forsalen by His Father?

 

[The Biblicist]

A man trips and accidentally touches the arm of a corpse. What moral law did he violate?

Ask yourself "why" would God require ceremonial cleansing for this? You are looking only at the external rather than the truth found in the symbolism inherent in this action. The symbolism is in the act not the intent. The act symbolizes identification with death which is spiritual separation from God which ultimately finds its full meaning in Gehenna - or total and eternal separation from God due to sin.

There is the "sin" of ignorance wherein "intent" is not the issue but the act of VIOLATING GOD'S LAW!

So to answer your question. the symbolism is an act of sin that results in separation - eternal separation regardless of intent. Remember, sin is coming short of the glory of God or sins of omission wherein "intent" is not the issue but violating the law's standard is the issue.

 

[The Biblicist]

they are deniable.

LOL tell me what isn't denied by someone???? That is no argument!

Prove that the sacrifice depicted the death of the sinner. Prove that God's wrath directed at the sinner was symbolically transfered upon the sacrifice.

You are so blinded by your zeal for your position you can't see the obvious. You admit this is a TYPE so deal with it as a type. What is the condemnation for sin by the Law? Answer - Death, and death in its fullest measured sense. Who sinned? The human sinner or the animal? Who suffers the death because of that sin, the human or the animal? How would death in its fullest sense be expressed in a TYPE? Physical death of the animal would partially depict the extent of death in type. However, death in association with "FIRE' would also be an appropriate type of death in its final conclusion (Gehenna) and in association with the brazen altar. I do not know of any typologists that deny the use of brass in the tabernacle/temple context does not typify the judgment of God.

You are demanding a LITERAL statement from a TYPE and then you won't even recognize the standard meanings associated with these types.

 

[Yeshua1]

LOL tell me what isn't denied by someone???? That is no argument!



You are so blinded by your zeal for your position you can't see the obvious. You admit this is a TYPE so deal with it as a type. What is the condemnation for sin by the Law? Answer - Death, and death in its fullest measured sense. Who sinned? The human sinner or the animal? Who suffers the death because of that sin, the human or the animal? How would death in its fullest sense be expressed in a TYPE? Physical death of the animal would partially depict the extent of death in type. However, death in association with "FIRE' would also be an appropriate type of death in its final conclusion (Gehenna) and in association with the brazen altar. I do not know of any typologists that deny the use of brass in the tabernacle/temple context does not typify the judgment of God.

You are simply lacking common sense as you are demanding a LITERAL statement from a TYPE and then you won't even recognize the standard meanings associated with these types.

Just seems to be backing away from the wrath of God aspect, and not really accepting PST, as ou rbroter Jon states one thing, but shies away from it?

 

[JonC]

Just am saying that how you view the atonement/Cross seemto line up pretty well with how Wrigh views it... As he is really into the odedience of Jesus as head of the Covenant model thing!

I don't subscribe to his model of the atonement. Just like others here he has failed to prove his theory. I do respect that he acknowledges this while some here are oblivious to the fact in their own ideas.

That said, I am not simply going to dismiss centuries upon centuries a scholarship simply because Wright agrees that the Cross was victory over sin and death.

Wright is not even the main advocate of the historical position. More to the point is that while I see truths conveyed in this predominant view, I also believe that the atonement was both penal and substitutionary. What I have been asking as for the reasons behind the contacts you ascribe to scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand the consequences of sin. That is biblical. What passage confirms your association of the brazen altar with the punishment of Hell. Other than your own ideologies and understanding, is there a passage that states the sacrifice was "punished" with the punishment reserved for the one offering the sacrifice?

The brazen altar is commonly acknowledged by most typologists to be a type of the JUDGEMENT of God. The "fire" is a type of Gehenna as even Christ used "fire" as a description of Gehenna and punishment.

Brass is used in scripture to typify God's judgement. In the following verse heaven is described as "brass" as the Lord from heaven is issuing forth punishments for sin rather heaven being represented as the source of blessings.

Deut 28:22-23
22 The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with
an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with
blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.
23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that
is under thee shall be iron.

In revelation 1 Christ's feet are characterized as polished "brass" in his role of Judge of the whole world in Revelation 6-19.

The combination of "fire" and "brass" together is obvious types of God's wrath taken out on the animal in the place of the sinner as it is the animal that is suffering death "for sin" instead of the sinner. This typifies Christ on the cross due to sinners and their sins and Isaiah characterizes his sufferings on the cross in terms of punishment for our sins. He was AFFLICTED due to sinners and their sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

You still don't understand the nature of God's law. It makes no difference what may be the application of the Law of God. The law is MORAL by its nature due to the fact it originates from God's moral faculty of the heart. All of God's laws are determined thoughts that issue from his heart and when spoken or written they become the revealed "will" of God. Violation of any of those laws is rebellion against HIS PERSON who is the source of law and that is what makes all violations MORAL issues.

You still have not been able to respond to the fact that both the written law/commandments of God can be summarized into two commandments and those two can be summarized in one word "LOVE" which is a MORAL VALUE that comprehends ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHET. It is' this same moral value that can summarize God "God IS love."

What that means is that ALL LAWS issuing from God are derived from his MORAL NATURE (his heart) or else they could not ALL be summarized under a MORAL VALUE (love) and that makes any violation of any of his laws a MORAL issue, a behaviorial issue TOWARD GOD.

 

[The Biblicist]

DO NOT inply that I have ever even hinted at such heresy. Hell is the second death as hades and death are cast into the Lake of Fire. What you are trying to accuse me of is the doctrine of Joyce Meyer and Kenneth Copeland.

No, I do not believe Jesus experienced Hell as the unsaved, along with Satan and his demons, will at the Judgment. I do not believe Jesus experienced "outer darkness". Instead I believe Jesus remained God's Holy One, the Perfect Lamb.

The essence of death is separation! Spiritual separation, physical separation and eternal separation from God. Jesus did experience separation from the Father on the Cross as in his own words he says "Why hast thou forsaken me." He is quoting from Psalm 22:1 and in the context the answer is given "because thou art holy" and Paul says that on the cross he was "made to be sin." So, yes, Jesus suffered not merely physical death but suffered "separation" from the Father on the cross. Obviously he was not made to be a "sinner" and thus "sinful" but made to be "sin" by substitutionary by position under the law.

The fact that he was "made to be sin" on the cross justifies the wrath of God poured upon him as the substitute for sinners. Isaiah 53 depicts all the suffering on the cross as coming directly from God due to our sins. Nothing could be plainer and therefore so much for the "Christus Victor" theory!