The Case for Penal Substitution

[JonC]

You are not making any sense becasue PSA does not assert any of these things as PSA does not include the law for regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification or any other application of the atonement to the acheivement of our actual salvation.

I never said otherwise. As I've repeatedly said, I am not "anti-Penal Substitution Theory. I just believe that since it does not include other purposes than moral implications but Scripture does that it is not complete.

Now to the question at hand....since you responded. Which verse are you claiming that I denied?

 

[Van]

Here is a hymn by Charles Wesley, not famed for his Calvinism:

'Tis finished! The Messiah dies,
Cut off for sins, but not His own;
Accomplished is the sacrifice,
the great redeeming work is done.
'Tis finished! All the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied;
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world has died.

The veil is rent in Christ alone;
the living wasy to heaven is seen;
the middle wall is broken down,
And all mankind may enter in.
The types and figures are fulfilled --
Exacted is the legal pain;
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.

The reign of sin and death is o'er,
And all may live from sin set free.
Satan has lost his mortal power,
'Tis swallowed up in victory.

Saved from the legal curse I am,
My Saviour hangs on yonder tree:
See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
'Tis finished! He expires for me.

Accepted in the well-beloved,
And clothed in righteousness divine
I see the bar to heaven removed,
And all Your merits, Lord, are mine.
Death, hell and sin are now subdued;
All grace is now to sinners given;
And lo! I plead the atoning blood
And in Your right I claim my heaven.

One of my very favourite hymns.

PSA is a Trojan Horse of Limited Atonement. Christ died for all sinners, those to be saved and those never to be saved. Only when an individual is transferred spiritually into Christ, and undergoes the circumcision of Christ, is his or her sin burden (what God holds against the person) removed.

 

[Van]

PSA denies 1 John 2:2 which indicates Christ's death provides the propitiation for the whole world, rather than a subset.

 

[Van]

Lets see, sequence one:

1) God chooses foreseen individuals, with or without foreseen faith, before creation.
2) Christ dies for the specific sins of those previously chosen individuals


Sequence two:
1) God chooses His Redeemer individually and those He will redeem corporately before creation.
2) Christ dies for all mankind, those to be redeemed and those never to be redeemed.
3) God chooses individually those whose faith in Christ He has credited as righteousness and transfers them into Christ, thus redeeming them.

Note in sequence two, every individual had not been individually chosen until after they lived not as a chosen people and not yet having obtained mercy.

If anyone can mesh 1 Peter 2:9-10 with individual election before creation, go for it.

In summary, Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross provides the price of redemption for everyone transferred into Christ, thus Christ died for all mankind, although only those put into Christ receive that reconciliation, because the penalty for their individual sins is removed by the circumcision of Christ.

 

[JonC]

PSA denies 1 John 2:2 which indicates Christ's death provides the propitiation for the whole world, rather than a subset.

I almost said I disagree because John Wesley was one of the strongest supporters of Penal Substitution Theory, but you are right in that Penal Substitution Theory logically dictates all five points of Calvinism.

I almost forgot the "logical conclusion" argument.

 

[The Biblicist]

But what you have failed to do is produce even one verse I've denied. NOT one..

That is not the issue! The issue is denial by wrong interpretation. We have pointed out plenty of wrong interpretations of scripture and provided solid exegetical based evidence to prove it and your response to that evidence is NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING!

 

[JonC]

That is not the issue! The issue is denial by wrong interpretation.

You are not "interpreting". You are expounding by providing commentary.

What I believe is stated and is not in need of your "interpretation".

Since you have been adamant that I am wrong, prove my stated view wrong. I told you where I believe you are wrong, can you do the same?

That was rhetorical. We both know you can't.

 

[Reformed1689]

You are not "interpreting". You are expounding by providing commentary.

What I believe is stated and is not in need of your "interpretation".

Since you have been adamant that I am wrong, prove my stated view wrong. I told you where I believe you are wrong, can you do the same?

That was rhetorical. We both know you can't.

Or, perhaps, you could actually give the Scriptures that have been requested that actually support your view.

 

[The Biblicist]

My complaint is that you are emphasizing one aspect of the atonement over the others.

And I am saying this accusation is completely false. I am saying the reason you make this accusation is because you conflate the completed act with ongoing applications or previous prerequisites.

The Penal Substitution Theory picks up the atonement from the point of a transgression.

What does the phrase "without the shedding of blood there is no....." begin with? Does it say "without the shedding of blood there is no regeneration.....no sanctification....no glorification.....no destruction of the works of Satan.....etc."? Well, certainly all things are not possible apart from the "shedding of blood" but that is not the beginning point is it?

Ask yourself what is being atoned? What is it in every single sacrifice in the book of Leviticus and the repeated reason to make atonement for? For what? Ask yourself what is being atoned in Isaiah 53? If there is no transgression there is no need of atonement - complete stop! So, throughtout scripture atonement begins with sinners committing sin.

But there was a reason Adam sinned (it was not a coin toss). And even here there are other aspects that Scripture addresses APART FROM the moral issue. All I am saying is that we cannot ignore or minimize one aspect over the other EVEN if our theory demands it.

Atonement deals with sinners with their sins as an offence to God's glory which satisfies his just wrath against sinners and their sins. It's applications after the completed act are consequences of that completed action.

 

[JonC]

Or, perhaps, you could actually give the Scriptures that have been requested that actually support your view.

I believe that the purpose of the atonement, the purpose for the coming of Christ, includes many things. Christ came to give us everlasting life (John 3:15; John 10:10; John 8:12; 1 Corinthians 15:45). Christ came in order to take away sins (1 John 3:5; 1 Peter 3:18; John 1:29). Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8). Christ came so that we would be reborn of God. Christ came so that we would love one another (1 John 3:11). Christ came so that we would be righteous (Romans 3:22; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ came that we would become children of God (John 1:12).

I believe that because of the Cross Jesus is the Firstborn of many brethren (Romans 8:29). He is the Head of God's people (Colossians 1:18). He is the standard by which we are to live (Philippians 2:5-11). He is our Mediator and Advocate (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 9:15). He Himself is the propitiation for the sins of man (1 John 2:22).

I believe that the Atonement was accomplished by Christ submitting Himself to the will of the Father (John 6:38), humbling Himself by becoming man (John 1:14), experiencing temptation as we experience temptation (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15), and remaining obedient even to death on the Cross (Mark 14:36) as the second Adam thereby becoming the Firstborn (Colossians 1:15) of many who through Him will be made children of God (Galatians 3:26).

 

[JonC]

And I am saying this accusation is completely false.

I know. And I am saying it is accurate.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are not "interpreting". You are expounding by providing commentary.

No, I placed undeniable hard exegetical facts before your face. E.g. present tense participles (Jn. 3:18), explicit language that denies the only grounds for condemnation is unbelief (Jn. 3:19). That the conclusion (vv. 19-21) proves Christ's assertion for the necessity of new birth (Jn. 3:3-11). That unbelief is first introduced in verses 12 as a secondary subject.

Romans 5:12 the aorist tense completed action verb (have sinned) rather than a future tense which would speak of sins beyond the sin introduced at the beginning of the verse along with the contextual evidence "by one man's disobedience many......" and the list goes on and on.

What I believe is stated and is not in need of your "interpretation".

No, the exegetical facts prove your view is based upon misinterpretation of the text and supports your view no more than proof texting by a JW proves their intepretation to be correct.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know. And I am saying it is accurate.

How can PSA be limited to one aspect when the very initials for it demand at least two aspects. How can it be restricted to "penal satisfaction" aspect from "substitionary" aspect. How can it be limited to unrighteousness apart from righteousness? How can it be limited to the law of God apart from what the law reflects - the righteousness of God. What you are saying is on the surface wrong much less when we consider any details of the atonement.

 

[JonC]

No, I placed undeniable hard exegetical facts before your face. E.g. present tense participles (Jn. 3:18), explicit language that denies the only grounds for condemnation is unbelief (Jn. 3:19). That the conclusion (vv. 19-21) proves Christ's assertion for the necessity of new birth (Jn. 3:3-11). That unbelief is first introduced in verses 12 as a secondary subject.

Romans 5:12 the aorist tense completed action verb (have sinned) rather than a future tense which would speak of sins beyond the sin introduced at the beginning of the verse along with the contextual evidence "by one man's disobedience many......" and the list goes on and on.

No, the exegetical facts prove your view is based upon misinterpretation of the text and supports your view no more than proof texting by a JW proves their intepretation to be correct.

This is why word studies are so dangerous.

 

[JonC]

How can PSA be limited to one aspect when the very initials for it demand at least two aspects. How can it be restricted to "penal satisfaction" aspect from "substitionary" aspect. How can it be limited to unrighteousness apart from righteousness? How can it be limited to the law of God apart from what the law reflects - the righteousness of God. What you are saying is on the surface wrong much less when we consider any details of the atonement.

How can Christus Victor be a serious error when it has to imply Christ as a propitiation?

It is wrong because it works in an opposite way when taken alone and compared to Scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that the purpose of the atonement, the purpose for the coming of Christ, includes many things. Christ came to give us everlasting life (John 3:15; John 10:10; John 8:12; 1 Corinthians 15:45). Christ came in order to take away sins (1 John 3:5; 1 Peter 3:18; John 1:29). Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8). Christ came so that we would be reborn of God. Christ came so that we would love one another (1 John 3:11). Christ came so that we would be righteous (Romans 3:22; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ came that we would become children of God (John 1:12).

I believe that because of the Cross Jesus is the Firstborn of many brethren (Romans 8:29). He is the Head of God's people (Colossians 1:18). He is the standard by which we are to live (Philippians 2:5-11). He is our Mediator and Advocate (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 9:15). He Himself is the propitiation for the sins of man (1 John 2:22).

I believe that the Atonement was accomplished by Christ submitting Himself to the will of the Father (John 6:38), humbling Himself by becoming man (John 1:14), experiencing temptation as we experience temptation (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15), and remaining obedient even to death on the Cross (Mark 14:36) as the second Adam thereby becoming the Firstborn (Colossians 1:15) of many who through Him will be made children of God (Galatians 3:26).

This is why you don't understand the atonement as you confuse the atonement with its applications. The atonement is a COMPLETED ACTION on the cross but all these other things are not completed actions - that in itself should wake you up from your slumber of delusions.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is why word studies are so dangerous.

Word studies are merely one aspect of proper exegesis. In John 3:18 there is no dispute that I know about concerning the meaning of any word. The dispute is over your limitations and applications of the words in verse 18 which the text along with its contexts just does not support.

 

[The Biblicist]

How can Christus Victor be a serious error when it has to imply Christ as a propitiation?

It is wrong because it works in an opposite way when taken alone and compared to Scripture.

Its wrong because it logical denies the necessity of death on the cross to atone for sins just as your view does.

 

[JonC]

This is why you don't understand the atonement as you confuse the atonement with its applications. The atonement is a COMPLETED ACTION on the cross but all these other things are not completed actions - that in itself should wake you up from your slumber of delusions.

Here is where you are very much in error:

I do understand the atonement through your theory. It is very simple and very clear. I appreciate that about your theory (Christus Victor is really more a theme than a theory, it's a bit messy; Moral Influence Theory is more precise, but still very much lacking; so I appreciate that your theory is probably the most precise of all of the theories developed). The reason you are horribly wrong is that I held and taught your theory. You probably do not remember but we have had conversations in the past (where we mostly agreed on this topic). So you are off base if you want to pretend that I reject your theory out of a lack of understanding. Like I said, it is the simplest theory out there (at least to the western mindset).

Where we disagree is that you seem very much unable to look beyond sin as moral transgression - even in Adam's transgression. And that's fine. I would have (and have) argued the same.

The problem comes in when you define an adherence to Scripture (to the biblical text) while rejecting your theoretical conclusions as "slumber of delusions". I don't care that it is an insult. What is troubling is that it places your theory in the place of Scripture and, ultimately, you in the place of God. If a person believes (even wrongly) in Scripture and you insist your theory should be the prevailing truth then even if your theory were correct you are guilty of usurping God when it comes to the Written Word.

Since you are unable to point out anything that I have presented as my belief as an error, and since you can only offer your conclusions based on an adherence to Greek/ Hebrew language tools and theory, I really do not see that you can contribute anything to my understanding. Ultimately it is the Bible vs The "Biblicist"...which is ironic if you think of it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, Gentleman, I am getting off this merri-go-round. Got grandchildren here and so a higher calling takes me away.