THe Biblical Place for Penal Substitution

[Armchair Apologist]

I do have to say that @JonC and @Van are correct in that I have heard and read Calvinists clearly state that if you don't have limited atonement you don't have penal substitution. What they are doing in these arguments is defining penal substitution as each individual sin of each elect person being either forgiven or not atoned for at the time of Jesus death. The reasoning behind this would be that it is the only way sin can truly be dealt with in an actual way. Christ's death did something real and therefore it must be only for the elect or else there has to be another explanation of the atonement.

With penal substitution, that particular view of it (no pun intended) does indeed require a definite or particular atonement. For a hyper-Calvinist, one who believes that the elect are truly saved from God's decree or at least from the time of Christ's death - no problem. For a moderate Calvinist, or other groups that still believe in penal substitutionary atonement the general belief is that Christ has died, and upon faith and repentance, or upon becoming united with Christ, then the benefits of the atonement are applied.

Those groups do not buy John Owen's famous argument of did Christ die for all the sins of some or some of the sins of all, and therefore, how can you believe in a universal atonement and not be a true universalist. That is outside of the scope of this but I do have to admit that some Calvinists do indeed insist that no limited atonement, no penal substitution (as they define it). Furthermore, they don't want any help from Arminians, or Weslyans whose evidence that I have seen (from primary sources Jon, like Wesley and Arminius) indicate that they did indeed believe in penal substitutionary atonement - but some Calvinists, unfortunately, won't align with them on this. It makes things more complicated when defending PSA that half of our side doesn't consider arguments from Arminians as useful at all!

Thanks for the insight! I am certainly not like "Those" Calvinists you have mentioned and had I encountered such along the way, I bet I'd make Leighton Flowers look like he was reformed! I have dipped my toes into the Calvinist pool but have never actually took a swan dive into the deep end! I am unaware of Van's background but JonC said he was a former "Calvinist" and I am guessing that in order to walk away from Calvinism, he felt he also had to walk away from PSA for the reasons you have mentioned? This would explain quite a bit.

I do believe that the atonement is ultimately limited only to God's elect but probably differ from John Owen regarding the way I would arrive such a conclusion as I would examine the intent, extent, and application of the atonement in order to do so. I think we also have to remember that the concept of a "Limited Atonement" wasn't fully developed during Calvin's time but Beza who took much of Calvin's teachings to a logical supralapsarian extreme.

I am guessing that if we just set aside all of the "theories" and wrote out our actual position on the atonement in 500 words or less, we would come to the conclusion that we agree on far more than we disagree. Care to test this hypothesis?

 

[JonC]

Regarding God's wrath, the scripture are clear that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) and he that believes not the Son shall not have life but the wrath of God abides in him (Jn 3:36) and that we were by nature the children of wrath even as others (Eph 2:3).

God's wrath is real. It is against the wicked (Rom 1:18) and is stored up for the Day of Wrath.

But at the same time, the "wages of sin" are the things produced by sin. Sin produces death James 1:15. The one who holds the power of death, in this context, is Satan (Heb 2:14).

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment (Heb 9:27).

We cannot blend this death, caused by sin as the power of Satan, with the Judgment that comes afterwards at the Day of Judgment.

Christus Victor is somewhat interesting. It is attributed to Gustaf Aulen and his book was published in 1931 so you would think it a "Johnny Come Lately" theory? He regarded it as being the "classic view" that was held in antiquity and of course cited patristic writings as does everyone else! Would you agree with my statement that much of Christus Victor can be found among the "Social Gospel" and "Liberation Theology" types?

The name "Christus Victor" is attributed to Aulen, not Christus Victor itself. Aulen complained that the name "Ransom theory" suggested a transaction and the result (Christ's victory) should be the focus.

But no, it is not a newer idea. It is the oldest view of atonement we know Christians held. It is the Ransom theory of Athanasius.

 

[JonC]

In one of the previous PSA debates, you suggested Torrance as one who refuted PSA.

I remember. You said no theologian refuted PSA. I mentioned him because so many traditional PSA scholars typically reject his version as PSA (just like they do with NT Wright, who claims he affirms PSA).

I was not saying I agree with Torrance, just that I see PSA becoming too watered down so as to incorporate more diverse forms.

 

[JesusFan]

God's wrath is real. It is against the wicked (Rom 1:18) and is stored up for the Day of Wrath.

But at the same time, the "wages of sin" are the things produced by sin. Sin produces death James 1:15. The one who holds the power of death, in this context, is Satan (Heb 2:14).

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment (Heb 9:27).

We cannot blend this death, caused by sin as the power of Satan, with the Judgment that comes afterwards at the Day of Judgment.


The name "Christus Victor" is attributed to Aulen, not Christus Victor itself. Aulen complained that the name "Ransom theory" suggested a transaction and the result (Christ's victory) should be the focus.

But no, it is not a newer idea. It is the oldest view of atonement we know Christians held. It is the Ransom theory of Athanasius.

Jesus upon that Cross experience that "day of wrath" for all of those to get redeemed right at that time

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist

I do enjoy discussing theology, especially this topic. I believe foundational doctrines (doctrines upon which other doctrines are built) must be in the text of Scripture.

Anyway, to continue let's look at the history.

First, the term penal substitution is not two independent words. We sometimes see people looking for penal and substitutionary aspects to confirm PSA. This is wrong. The “penal” describes the substitution as opposed to representative substitution or satisfactory substitution. It is one term. The type of substitution.

Next, how did we get here?

The earliest view was not a substitution. It was Ransom Theory (a theory based on the focus, not the subject) or Christus Victor. The Early Church did not view this God paying a ransom to Satan, but Origen used this to illustrate the ransom. Some used “Satan” to personify death. Some defined this as God paying a ransom to Satan. Some as Christ paying a ransom to death itself. The main view was that Christ ransomed us from sin and death without a ransom being received. This is common to the language today as “ransom” is “a means of deliverance or rescue” (with or without somebody receiving payment). Likewise, paying a price does not demand a payment is received. BUT by the 12th Century it had become accepted among the laity that God paid a ransom to Satan. This was in part due to the worldview of the time (the way ransoms were used).

Representative Substitution

Anselm concluded that an atonement theory needed to be developed that excluded this misunderstanding and that was easily identifiable with his culture. His solution was to center the atonement on Christ restoring to God the honor that mankind had stolen. Anselm postulated that our atonement takes the form of a transaction between God and Christ. This was a shift from the traditional Christianity of that time, and it caused some, like Abelard, to develop other theories as a counter alternative.

Satisfactory Substitution

In the 13th Century Aquinas developed Satisfactory Substitution which centered on justness and merit. This was the first time in Christian history that it was suggested Christ suffered divine punishment. To prevent this theory from being a heresy Aquinas painstakingly detailed that the type of punishment was not penal, it was not the punishment for our sins but instead a suffering that satisfied God and restored merit. To defend this theory Aquinas developed the idea that a just man could suffer instead of a guilty man as long as all parties (including the judge) were willing and the punishment was not punishment for the crime.

Penal Substitution

Calvin was a law student in 16th century France who was a disciple of Roman civil law and humanism (Renaissance humanism). As such, he rejected Aquinas (Aquinas’ theory stood in contrast to Calvin’s judicial philosophy) but he appreciated much of Anselm and sought to take up where he viewed Aquinas as failing in revising Aquinas’ theory.

Cur Deus Homo influenced much of Calvin’s writings, especially Aquinas’ view that our atonement takes the form of a transaction between God and Christ. This left open the exact nature of the transaction, which could not be honor. Calvin wrote that the purpose of the “subjugation of Christ to the law [was] to acquire righteousness for us, undertaking to pay what we could not pay…the curse cruised by our guilt was awaiting us at God’s heavenly judgment seat. Accordingly, Scripture first relates Christ’s condemnation before Pilate, to teach us that the penalty to which we were subject had been imposed upon this righteous man.” (Institutes, II.xvii.4). Calvin continues by concluding that Jesus must have “[taken] on the role of a guilty man”, He must have played our part.

Calvin develops his theory fuller. Christ must be judged in the place of the guilty and the scene before Pilate is structured in such a way as to make plain this judgment to the observers. What Calvin does not do is question why God must demand punishment in response to humanity’s crimes. This is the logic that shaped Calvin’s theology (it is Calvin’s presupposition).

The most significant revision of Anselm by Calvin was the development and use of penal substitution to describe Christ’s atoning death.

 

[JonC]

I'm not claiming to know a lot about Anabaptists or Mennonites. But I do look at what they put on their own sites and go by what they themselves say. It should not surprise you that they are all over the place, since Calvinists, the most systematic group of all, are also all over the place. But it does bother me when you try to declare the desirability of loose or no strict theology, and then when someone else puts up an example of what those who are loose and sort of open in their theology are doing - and you then act like the rest of us just don't understand what they really mean and thus aren't allowed to make the same claims they make themselves. You are playing it both ways.

If you are reading what Anabaptists put on websites then I can absolutely guarantee that you are not reading traditional Anabaptist theology.

Anabaptists are all over the place. So are Calvinists. So are Baptists.

I was serious when I said I believe theology is dead (in a general sense) due to technology.

The internet, study tools, language tools...all of the things that could aid theology had the opposite effect as they are avaliable to thise with absolutely no formal education in theology.

Just look at John of Japan. He studied for a very long time, earning his degrees. He is a translator. But how many times have you seen somebody who has absolutely no formal education in Greek or Hebrew dismiss him as ignorant for not agreeing with their understanding of a Hebrew word?

We see this in the world. People choose the news that they want to hear and they believe it is true.

Take that to theology. You have Calvinists who reject several points of Calvinism. Baptists who have baptized infants. Anabaptists who hold not only PSA but Arminianism. People who claim to believe the Doctrines of Grace but reject a few parts of that doctrine.

Trying to nail down today's theological boundaries is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Too many armchair scholars starting too many churches and movements.

When it comes to discussing traditional Christianity we have to go to the original sources and take those writings as a whole and reflective of the writers belief.

If somebody living 2000 years ago wrote "I like peanuts" we cannot asdume that they liked or would like peanut butter. We have to stop at "I like peanuts".

 

[JonC]

Somewhere, maybe it was the Lutheran guy Dr. Cooper, but I can't remember for sure, but he made the point that "wrath" in the case of God's wrath as used in scripture, was what happens when a Holy God meets sin. Or you might say it is God's reaction to sin. If that is true then is would certainly be reasonable to say that Jesus suffered God's wrath, especially while he was bearing our sin in his own body on the tree.

DB Cooper?

It would not be reasonable because God's wrath is reserved for the Day of Wrath (Romans 2:5). Also, from what we see in Scripture, what Jesus suffered on the tree was death once for all that He might disarm the power of the one who holds the power of death - that is Satan (Heb 2:14).

Now, we can try to reason that away. We can reason that God was using Satan, for example.

BUT we can't and be faithful to Scripture because God's Word does not reason it out that way.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you are reading what Anabaptists put on websites then I can absolutely guarantee that you are not reading traditional Anabaptist theology.

I find it difficult to obtain Anabaptist works (primary works). They aren't published in the same way a lot of Puritan works were not available before Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Banner of Truth got going. But I do read reviews of Anabaptist and Mennonite views of the atonement in those sources and so I assume at least that they are not deliberately trying to distort their views. But one thing they agree on is that the writings are relatively rare and not systematic in nature.

Anabaptists are all over the place. So are Calvinists. So are Baptists.

Yep.

Just look at John of Japan. He studied for a very long time, earning his degrees. He is a translator. But how many times have you seen somebody who has absolutely no formal education in Greek or Hebrew dismiss him as ignorant for not agreeing with their understanding of a Hebrew word?

Don't put me in that group. I highly respect him and also his grandfather.

Take that to theology. You have Calvinists who reject several points of Calvinism.

Yes and then other Calvinists come along and say you can't do that. It's all or nothing. And in addition to that you have Calvinists who reject a point like "limited atonement" not because it's untrue, but what they are rejecting is what most people take it to be - which if true in that sense, would indeed slander God's nature.

When it comes to discussing traditional Christianity we have to go to the original sources and take those writings as a whole and reflective of the writers belief.

The only problem there is that while I admit I am not well read enough to derive all information contained in the original sources on my own, I have indeed looked at original sources for say, evidence of an understanding of substitutionary atonement in ECF's, and furthermore, upon hearing the criticism that they are taken out of context, go back to the untouched original sources which I do have and find that it is quite satisfactory to me that indeed the claim was true that they were aware of what we later call PSA. I don't require you to have the same conclusion, but I don't care either when you try to dismiss that type of evidence. I admit I come to everything with presuppositions. I don't see how a human could not do so. My point is that so do you.

 

[DaveXR650]

It would not be reasonable because God's wrath is reserved for the Day of Wrath (Romans 2:5). Also, from what we see in Scripture, what Jesus suffered on the tree was death once for all that He might disarm the power of the one who holds the power of death - that is Satan (Heb 2:14).

Now, we can try to reason that away. We can reason that God was using Satan, for example.

BUT we can't and be faithful to Scripture because God's Word does not reason it out that way.

Jon with all due respect I think this is what gets on people's nerves. So what a Lutheran theologian says is not reasonable because you have a nuanced and novel view of God's wrath which on your own have decided that it can have no meaning until the day of wrath. This is unreasonable. God's final wrath may be fully expressed in a special day but that does not mean the word itself has no meaning otherwise. I'm just telling you, the problem with your theology is that you have an eclectic set of beliefs that you yourself claim resulted as a starting point from almost an epiphany of some type. I don't mean to be critical because I truly do think we should all do like you do in that we should develop a working theology for our own lives with much prayer and Bible study, as we travel this journey of life. I read some Anabaptist literature, what I can get, myself because they tend to be like this and pietistic, and view communion with Christ and closeness with him as being far more important than exact knowledge and expertise in systematic theology. I just don't think it works when you try to take your personal journey and place it on everyone as if it was a detailed rebuttal of Calvinistic error - when it is not.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

If you are reading what Anabaptists put on websites then I can absolutely guarantee that you are not reading traditional Anabaptist theology.

Because Anabaptists are luddites driving around in horse carriages and believe that electricity is of the Devil right?

I was serious when I said I believe theology is dead (in a general sense) due to technology.

The internet, study tools, language tools...all of the things that could aid theology had the opposite effect as they are avaliable to thise with absolutely no formal education in theology.

What the internet has done is provide tools and resources that are accessible to the "average joe" rather than a select few who is priviliged enough to spend hours and years in theological libraries doing endless research! I believe this is a good thing and akin to Guttenberg's printing press in the 16th century. I think we would both agree that there is a world of difference between putting in the time and doing actual study and research and just receiving and regurgitating information acquired by a few keystrokes from a search engine. I am glad we have all of the "language tools" and I make good use of them but my understanding of Greek is limited and my understanding of Hebrew is nil. I will gladly look up to those who actually put in the time to learn these languages and I am they have done so! If only I could turn the clock back 30 years or so...

Just look at John of Japan. He studied for a very long time, earning his degrees. He is a translator. But how many times have you seen somebody who has absolutely no formal education in Greek or Hebrew dismiss him as ignorant for not agreeing with their understanding of a Hebrew word?

We see this in the world. People choose the news that they want to hear and they believe it is true.

Much of this comes from our American culture and our "Love of Independence" which has defined us pretty much from the very start. Such a mentality led to all of the "circuit riding preechers" who had a great bit of zeal but limited education and were often right proud of their ignorance and looked with contempt towards those who were legitimately educated. The restorationists wreaked their havoc as well. Such lives on in our modern evangelical world. The IFB world of which I have come out of is among the worst of offenders but I have spent several years trying to recover from this. I now have an MA degree from an actual Seminary which I worked my tail off for (as well as driving my lovely wife up the wall). I do not know how such makes me stack up against you, John of Japan, and others here but I am certainly more appreciative and respectful now of those who have put in the time and effort to pursue an education. Rest assured that you have my respect.

Take that to theology. You have Calvinists who reject several points of Calvinism. Baptists who have baptized infants. Anabaptists who hold not only PSA but Arminianism. People who claim to believe the Doctrines of Grace but reject a few parts of that doctrine.

Trying to nail down today's theological boundaries is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Too many armchair scholars starting too many churches and movements.

This is where I think I need to push back just a little here. We can look at the works of Calvin and others during the reformation as well as the articles of remonstrance and the canons of dordt and realize that there was a fairly wide spectrum of where people stood regarding election, predestination, and so forth! We understand this through our study of historic theology and church history. It is today's "Young, Restless, and Reformed" crowd (for example) that has set rigid boundaries saying things like "If you do not believe all 5-points, then you are not a Calvinist" and so forth! I believe that each of us must put in the time and work to "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is right" and to be "Fully persuaded in our own minds so that we may confidently articulate our theological position rather than just trying to conform to whatever crowd you may want to run with.

When it comes to discussing traditional Christianity we have to go to the original sources and take those writings as a whole and reflective of the writers belief.

If somebody living 2000 years ago wrote "I like peanuts" we cannot asdume that they liked or would like peanut butter. We have to stop at "I like peanuts".

I agree but what are we to learn from looking to these "original sources?" We may undertand what they believed but how do we know that they were right? We often look for consistency in our personal views among the Patristics, Doctors, Scholastics, Reformers, and so forth but I have stated in my paper, we can find quotes from these original sources which seem to say what we believe and someone having opposing views can do the same. The current topic we have been discussing is a perfect example of this! It goes without saying that we determine whether these "original sources" are right when we examine their views through the bedrock of scripture!

 

[JonC]

Jon with all due respect I think this is what gets on people's nerves. So what a Lutheran theologian says is not reasonable because you have a nuanced and novel view of God's wrath which on your own have decided that it can have no meaning until the day of wrath. This is unreasonable.

Found it in my own? I guess. That is how the plain text of Scripture reads. But alone in that view or novel view? That would be an extraordinary dishonest claim, especially were it to come from somebody who professed Christ.

I do not think it logical to hold to PSA and believe God partially expressed His wrath against sin on the Cross.

Lets look at the verse and see if God's wrath against sinners for wickedness is wrought out immediately or if it is reserved for a future time.

That way the argument would not be against me or you but God.

Here is the passage where Paul speaks of God's judgment:

Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”

Here is Jesus' words:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. ... Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ...Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

John's vision -

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it... And books were opened... And the dead were judged according to their works, by what was written in the books."

Jesus' words -

"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak."

Hebrews -

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment."


I believe that God's wrath is "stored up" until the day of wrath.

I believe that there is a day of judgment when God will judge the sinners for their sins.

I believe that it is appointed man once to die and then (afterwards) the judgment.

I believe God will judge the wicked for their sins after they have died.

Now....you disagree and that is perfectly fine.
BUT you have no right to say my beluef is unreasonable given the passages listed above. And there are plenty of other passages about a future day when God will exercise His wrath against the wicked.

Your objection is unreasonable given God's words.

 

[JonC]

The current topic we have been discussing is a perfect example of this! It goes without saying that we determine whether these "original sources" are right when we examine their views through the bedrock of scripture!

This is not a true claim. It should be true. I wish it were true. But it is not.

We should examine ALL doctrine through the bedrock of Scripture.

What passage states that God has to punish sin to be just?

What passage states that God would be just to punish the just in order to clear the guilty?

What passage states that What Jesus experienced on the Cross was God's wrath?

What passage states that Jesus suffered God's punishment so we would not?

What passage equates the punishment of sin with the forgiveness of sin?

Those are just a few questions you have not answered with a passage.

We should test all doctrine against "what is written". But too many do not because their understanding does not pass the test. So they lean on their own understanding rather than the words of God. They trust in what men who "tickle their ears" have said Scripture "really" teaches when "properly" understood. They are wolves.

 

[DaveXR650]

I do not think it logical to hold to PSA and believe God partially expressed His wrath against sin on the Cross.

Well, in truth it supports limited atonement. Christ stood in the place of the elect, who will escape the justly deserved wrath of God. As Owen asks, "What happens to the guilt if not that Christ suffered (the just for the unjust) in our place". (paraphrased quote). What's really interesting is that he goes on and answers your question from earlier "It will be said that guilt is taken away by the free pardon of sin. But if so, there is not need for punishment of it at all,--which is indeed, what the Socinians plead, but by others is not admitted,--for if punishment be not for guilt, is is not punishment."

Lets look at the verse and see if God's wrath against sinners for wickedness is wrought out immediately or if it is reserved for a future time.

Most of us would last about a day if God's wrath was expressed immediately when we did something wrong or unholy.

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment."

Are you trying to say that we will all face the judgement for our own sins? Even though Christ has died and bore them in his own body?
I do believe that we will still have to give account for our service and our use of our spiritual gifts and there will certainly be a lot of things we will find out we were wrong about. But I just hope you haven't gone so far off track that you have lost all concept of our standing in some way in Christ or the need to have his righteousness as a covering. Anyone who thinks they can face the Almighty on their own really is a Socinian. And so Owen asked, if we can't bear the guilt, and won't have to, where did it go? Christ took it upon himself.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

This is not a true claim. It should be true. I wish it were true. But it is not.

I believe what I said is that we often appeal to certain "Original Sources" to support the idea that men in time past believed just as we do today. In my paper, I noted how many would cite Augustine in order to support Christus Victor or the Ransom Theory so I cited one of his statements which seems to support Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Which one is right and which position is rightly justified?

We should examine ALL doctrine through the bedrock of Scripture.

What passage states that God has to punish sin to be just?

Rom 3:24-26 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

What passage states that God would be just to punish the just in order to clear the guilty?

Isaiah 53:5-6 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

What passage states that What Jesus experienced on the Cross was God's wrath?

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

What passage states that Jesus suffered God's punishment so we would not?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

What passage equates the punishment of sin with the forgiveness of sin?

Romans 8:2-4 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Those are just a few questions you have not answered with a passage.

We may also include the entirety of the Old Testament which speaks of how God will accomplish atonement of sin from Gen 3:15 on.

They are wolves.

Who are you referring to as wolves?

 

[JonC]

I believe what I said is that we often appeal to certain "Original Sources" to support the idea that men in time past believed just as we do today. In my paper, I noted how many would cite Augustine in order to support Christus Victor or the Ransom Theory so I cited one of his statements which seems to support Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Which one is right and which position is rightly justified?

Rom 3:24-26 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Isaiah 53:5-6 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Romans 8:2-4 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

We may also include the entirety of the Old Testament which speaks of how God will accomplish atonement of sin from Gen 3:15 on.

Who are you referring to as wolves?

I was not criticizing you for not using original sources. I was speaking to Dave about why it is important.

Look at the verses you provided in response to those requests.

Nome of the verses say or even address the questions you were supposedly addressing.

It is a short cut many take to quiet challenges. I am not going to address all of them, but none of them are remotely sufficient.


Lets look at one so you can see what I mean.


I ASKED - What passage states that God would be just to punish the just in order to clear the guilty?

YOU SAID - Isaiah 53:5-6 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

BUT - The passage you gave does not say that God would be just to punish the just, OR that God woukd be just to do so in order to clear the guilty.

The passage does not even say that the guilty are cleared (that would be an assumption, but what if the guilty were made in the image of Christ - actually righteous in the end?).

You may understand that to be what the verse teaches, but your understanding would not pass the test of Scripture.

That was my point. You are free to believe whatever you desire. But your belief cannot pass the test of Scripture.

You can test what you believe the Bibke teaches against what you think is taught by the Bible. But you cannot hold an objective faith (it is subjective) as it cannot pass the test if "what is written".

What do I mean by "wolves"?

I mean professing believers who tell others the biblical text means something other than is stated in God's Word (those who teach their understanding rather than the words that comes from God).

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist

This (a faithfulness to God's Word) is important. When we make truth subjective by exchanging God's words for our understanding we forfeit any integrity.

This is one reason people have abandoned churches in favor of individual worship. I know this because I have heard it repeatedly.

I have spoken to people who are Christian but left all "organized religion" over PSA. A few explained that the Bible did not match what they were being taught. A couple rejected the legal philosophy at the center of PSA.


Let me ask you -

If Steve were to say homosexuality is not a sin in the Bible could you prove otherwise?

You may offer Lev 20:13. Or maybe Romans 1:27.

But what if Steve says "yea...but what is really being taught is a prohibition against prostitution, as all serious scholars know (a common defence). Or "but that was cultural and does not apply". Or "in the OT that was the same as the dietary laws".

You would have no right to argue against Steve's position because you also base your position not on "what is written" but on what you believe is "really" taught when "properly" understood.

You stand on the same subjective ground as Steve, just with a different topic.

You would never win over Steve just as I have no inclination that you will change your mind and take Scripture for what is actually stated.


Here is a suggestion- buy a new highlighter and highlight every verse in your Bible that states God punished Jesus instead of us, that Jesus suffered God's wrath, that God punished the just to clear the guilty. Afterwards you can return the highlighter for a refund because it would not have been used.

 

[JonC]

Well, in truth it supports limited atonement.

With PSA there are only two logical options - Universal Salvation or Limited Atonement.

 

[DaveXR650]

With PSA there are only two logical options - Universal Salvation or Limited Atonement.

You do more on here than anyone to convince us why we should be good Calvinists. And not just this.

 

[JonC]

You do more on here than anyone to convince us why we should be good Calvinists. And not just this.

If you are a Calvinist you should be the very best one you can be.

There is no Calvinist worse than a bad Calvinist.

I would go even farther. Calvinism is a philosophy that builds on itself, interlocking its elements. A four point Calvinist is an inconsistent Calvinist.

My hope is as Calvinists mature they will move towards a deeper understanding of Scripture (start believing "what is written").

But the more important part is spiritual truth. This affects how we live.

 

[Ben1445]

@Van is right. But the argument is about limited atonement, with the presupposition that PSA is already true - and that it is defined as the actual atoning for the sins of the elect. The double payment of penalty argument is from John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". In all fairness though I should add that you have to understand Calvinism as a whole or reject it as a whole. The atoning for the sins of the elect cannot be isolated from the time when they will hear the call of God and come to Christ in faith and repentance. It's not fair to break it apart and then claim that a separate part doesn't make any sense. Therefore, if you cannot see how the atonement actually atoned for the sins it was meant to atone for - and yet the elect, who include all who want to come by their own choice - can infallibly do so and that therefore the gospel can be preached to every person, accompanied by a genuine invitation to all, and yet all those who freely come, come because they were chosen before the foundation of the world - then you don't and probably never will believe what is called Calvinism.

All I can say is if you don't like it, or can't get your head around it, don't become an enemy of it. There is no reason to do so in 2026. Instead, keep reading and studying scripture and the dual ideas of God's sovereignty and his honest desire that all be saved, working within the overall scope of his will being done - ends up making sense.

I don’t have any trouble making sense of Scripture. It’s the “God has sovereignly created some people with the intention of punishing them forever for something they could not help but do because they were born under sin and will reject a God that they never had an opportunity to receive and therefore have not actually rejected because you didn’t have the opportunity to reject you were just condemned already. (Which I believe and is biblical to an extent, until…) but God has chosen some people without respect for anyone, a random lottery by the grace of God, for a few out of the trillions of people who have ever lived, to be coerced into believing in Jesus while the rest get to glorify God by showing how good He is because of their eternal judgment. Isn’t God good?”

Yeah, I don’t understand that crowd.
There is so much of that kind of teaching that is so anti Scripture, and not who God has revealed Himself to be.
That sort of teaching is why people sit in church and shake to show their fear of God. It just shows that they don’t understand who God has shown Himself to be.