The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[JonC]

'But as Christ endured death as man and for man, so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death.
And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.'
Augustine of Hippo, 'Against Faustus,' sect. 6, p. 209.

And all of us, I hope, believe this.

But as Christ endured death as man and for man, so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death.
And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.'
Augustine of Hippo, 'Against Faustus,' sect. 6, p

But we know Augustine strongly emphasized Christ's death was not an atonement to appease God.

And where, in that quote, is God punishing Christ instead of punishing us? Where is Christ dying to appease God? Where is Christ experiencing God's wrath?


It isn't there just as it isn't in Scripture.

So the question is why Penal Substitution Theorists see what is not actually there? Just like they see it in Scripture when it is not there, it is because of their presuppositions and traditions.

 

[DaveXR650]

And where, in that quote, is God punishing Christ instead of punishing us? Where is Christ dying to appease God? Where is Christ experiencing God's wrath?

Jon. I see all that in the quote. And I see it in the quote from Clement. I guess we will just disagree. I like to listen to Martyn Lloyd Jones sermons and he has several on the atonement and they are helpful.

 

[JonC]

Jon. I see all that in the quote. And I see it in the quote from Clement. I guess we will just disagree. I like to listen to Martyn Lloyd Jones sermons and he has several on the atonement and they are helpful.

Help me out then.

Highlight in the quote where they state that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

I say that for illustration as I know it is impossible. But I do understand what you mean.

I believed Penal-substitutionary-atonement for decades. Studied in seminary. Taught it in theology.

Sometimes we see things that are not there.

Consider how many Christians appreciate C.S. Lewis without really seeing his theology (he was very anti-Penal Substitution Theory).

Or, since you mentioned him earlier, Augustine. We know Augustine believed the idea Christ died to appease God was heresy. So how could he affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

Maybe that is how we learn from others with opposing views. I don't know.

All I know is I desire to be faithful to Scripture. So if you really find a passage stating that God punished Christ instead of us, or that Jesus suffered the wrath of God, then point it out to me and I will be the better for it. Not what you see, but what is really there in the text.

Until then, I'm content with a simpler faith.

 

[DaveXR650]

And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.'

Jon, "He was cursed for our offenses in the death which he suffered in bearing our punishment". The only thing it lacks is that it doesn't say that God was angry with Jesus but being cursed for our offenses, suffering, and bearing our punishment are powerful indicators of penal substitutionary atonement.

Consider how many Christians appreciate C.S. Lewis without really seeing his theology (he was very anti-Penal Substitution Theory).

I'm a fan of C.S. Lewis and think he was a genius. But he's not a good example. A lot of people question his orthodoxy. (Not me, by the way). I mean, the United Methodists are very anti PSA too but if anything, that should concern you. It is helpful to see who lines up where. John Owen, Martyn Lloyd Jones, B.B. Warfield for it.

What I find confusing to me is that you seem, in earlier posts to be on the same page with as you said most of PSA, except for 5%. Yet you reject it. When you put forth a doctrine or a theory - if it is to be useful for others to use it has to be able to be articulated. I honestly can't understand where you are coming from. I would challenge anyone else who reads these posts to articulate what you mean. You say you taught it for years. Maybe I'm just where you were then.

I have learned a lot from this thread and I admit that PSA is apparently falling out of favor. Maybe it came back some with the YRR Calvinist resurgence but this actually bothers me way more than the Calvinist vs Arminian stuff. I know from your other posts you don't intend this but I think we are in danger of losing the importance of the cross with some of these alternative theories.

 

[JonC]

Jon, "He was cursed for our offenses in the death which he suffered in bearing our punishment". The only thing it lacks is that it doesn't say that God was angry with Jesus but being cursed for our offenses, suffering, and bearing our punishment are powerful indicators of penal substitutionary atonement.



I'm a fan of C.S. Lewis and think he was a genius. But he's not a good example. A lot of people question his orthodoxy. (Not me, by the way). I mean, the United Methodists are very anti PSA too but if anything, that should concern you. It is helpful to see who lines up where. John Owen, Martyn Lloyd Jones, B.B. Warfield for it.

What I find confusing to me is that you seem, in earlier posts to be on the same page with as you said most of PSA, except for 5%. Yet you reject it. When you put forth a doctrine or a theory - if it is to be useful for others to use it has to be able to be articulated. I honestly can't understand where you are coming from. I would challenge anyone else who reads these posts to articulate what you mean. You say you taught it for years. Maybe I'm just where you were then.

I have learned a lot from this thread and I admit that PSA is apparently falling out of favor. Maybe it came back some with the YRR Calvinist resurgence but this actually bothers me way more than the Calvinist vs Arminian stuff. I know from your other posts you don't intend this but I think we are in danger of losing the importance of the cross with some of these alternative theories.

The issue is every Christian believes Christ suffered the penalty for sin, and every Christian believes this is the penalty we are due for our sin.

That said, Penal Substitution Theory is a minority view within the Christian faith. It os relatively new. Neither of these points make the theory wrong g - but it shows you may be seeing what is not there.

The problem with the Theory is it turns biblical atonement on its head. Nowhere does Scripture provide for God's wrath to fall on the Righteous. And nowhere is it said that God punished Jesus instead of us.

Another issue is it looks to a spiritual penalty while ignoring the physical penalty for sin. In fact, the bible places the wages of sin in the physical arena with the dpuritual being Christ-centered (all judgment being given to Him). This alone should disprove the Theory.

 

[Iconoclast]

'....Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:25-26).

Someone asked me why I didn't write the verse out in full, so here it is.
First of all, what is a propitiation? It is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. The Puritans used to speak of the satisfaction of Christ, that He, on the cross, had satisfied the outraged justice of God. If I have upset Mrs M in some way, I might buy her a bunch of flowers as a propitiation in the hope that she will be propitiated. Now of course I don't know whether a bunch of flowers is going to propitiate Mrs M; she might hold out for a slap-up meal somewhere, but we know that God is propitiated by the death of Christ, because He Himself set Christ forth.
Now note that the text does not say that Christ's propitiation demonstrates God's love. Other texts like John 3:16 say that but this text says it is to demonstrate His righteousness. God had passed over the sins of men like David. How was that just? If God is 'angry with sinners every day,' if, 'the soul that sins shall die,' and 'after this the judgment,' how come David, who committed sins for which the law of Moses gave no sacrifice, is not in hell this very moment? Because David looked forward to Christ by faith, 'and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses' (Acts 13:39). How is that just? Because Christ has paid the penalty; He is our substitute. Justice is satisfied.
And so, in O.T. times and today, God can be just and yet justify ungodly sinners. How can He do that? Because the Lord Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for our sins in full on the cross, being made a curse for us to expiate the curse of Deuteronomy 27:26. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' (Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23). Christ hangs on a tree; therefore Christ is cursed. But Christ is the perfect, sinless, beloved Son of God. Therefore He bears the curse on our behalf and expiates it. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' If I bear your burden, it means that you don't bear it. My muscles substitute for yours; my back aches and yours doesn't. If Christ bears your sins and the penalty of them, it means that you don't. He is your substitute; your Penal Substitute.

In Why trust a cross D.A.Carson offers this;
Precisely because God is holy, it would be no mark of moral greatness in him if he were dispassionate or distant or uncaring when his creatures rebel against him, offend him, and cast slurs on his glory. Because he is holy, God does more than give sinners over'"' to their own deserts, a kind of pedagogical demonstration that the people he created, silly little things, have taken some unfortunate paths: this abandonment of them is judicial, a function of his wrath67, an anticipation of the great assize. 68 But because he is love, God provides a 'redemption' that simultaneously wipes out the sin of those who offend, and keeps his own 'justice' intact. This, as we shall see, is the most plausible reading of Romans 3:25b-26. God does not act whimsically, sometimes in holy wrath and sometimes in love. He always acts according to the perfections of his own character.

As Peterson nicely puts it, 'A properly formulated view of penal substitution will speak of retribution being experienced by Christ because that is our due. Moreover, the penalty inflicted by God's justice and holiness is also a penalty inflicted by God's love 66 This is mentioned five times in 1:18ff. 67 Romans 1:18. 68 Romans 2:5ff.; 3:19. and mercy, for salvation and new life.'69

Nor is this the only Pauline passage where such themes come together. Space limitations forbid even a survey of 2 Corinthians 5:14-6:2,70 but it is important to see the place of 2 Corinthians 5:21 in the argument. Strangely, Travis writes, 'But God's wrath is not mentioned in the context, and the focus is in fact on Christ's death absorbing or neutralizing the effects of sin. And that does not involve notions of retribution.'7! Yet already at 5:10, Paul has established that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive recompense for what has been done in the body. Certainly in a parallel passage that treats the theme of reconciliation72 , wrath is not absent. The fact of the matter is that in Christ's reconciling work, God was 'not counting men's sins against them'. 73 Why not? Because he simply wiped them out, in the sense that he treated them as if they did not matter? No, far from it: 'God made [Christ] who had no sin to be sin74 for us. '75 It is the unjust punishment of the Servant in Isaiah 53 that is so remarkable. Forgiveness, restoration, salva69 David Peterson, 'Atonement,' p. 38. 70 On which see, in addition to the major commentaries, David Peterson, 'Atonement,' p.36-39. 71 Stephen Travis, 'Christ as Bearer of Divine Judgement,' p. 27. 7Z Cf. Romans 5:1·11. 73 2 Corinthians 5:19. 74 Even if one decides to render this 'sin' by the periphrastic 'sin offering', the idea of penal substitution remains inescapable. See ch, 7, Richard Gaffin, '"The Scandal of the Cross": The Atonement in the Pauline Corpus.' 75 Romans 5:21. 358 Donald A. Carson tion, reconciliation-all are possible, not because sins have somehow been cancelled as if they never were, but because another bore them, unjustly. But by this adverb 'unjustly' I mean that the person who bore them was just, and did not deserve the punishment, not that some moral 'system' that God was administering was thereby distorted.

Rather, the God against whom the offences were done pronounced sentence, and sent his Son to bear the sentence76; he made him who had no sin to be sin for us. 77 And the purpose of this substitution was that 'in him we might become the righteousness of God' .78 In this context, 'righteousness' cannot call to mind 'covenant faithfulness' or the like, for its obverse is sin.79 'The logic of 2 Corinthians 5 is that God condemns our sin in the death of his sin76 Romans 5:8. 77 2 Corinthians 5:21a. 78 c51KaloatiV1) 8EOU, 2 Corinthians 5:21b. 79 Part of the contemporary (and frequently sterile) debate over whether or not Paul teaches 'imputation,' it seems to me, turns on a failure to recognize distinct domains of discourse. Strictly speaking, Paul never uses the verb }.oyf~oJ1a/ to say, explicitly, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner or that the sinner's righteousness is imputed to Christ. So if one remains in the domain of narrow exegesis, one can say that Paul does not explicitly teach 'imputation', except to say slightly different things (e.g. that Abraham's faith was 'imputed' to him for righteousness). But if one extends the discussion into the domain of constructive theology, and observes that the Pauline texts themselves (despite the critics' contentions) teach penal substitution, then 'imputation' is merely another way of saying much the same thing. To take a related example: As Paul uses 'reconciliation' terminology, the moveless Son so that we might be justified and reconciled to him (ef. Rom. 8:1- 4,10). This "great exchange" is a reality for all who are "in him", that is, united to Christ by faith. '80 In some such frame as this, then, it is entirely coherent to think of God as both the subject and the object of propitiation. Indeed, it is the glory of the gospel of God. But let Paul have the last word: You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through ment in reconciliation is always of the sinner to God. God is never said to be reconciled to us; we must be reconciled to him. At the level of exegesis, those are the mere facts.

On the other hand, because the same exegesis also demands that we take the wrath of God seriously, and the texts insist that God takes decisive action in Christ to deal with our sin so that his wrath is averted, in that sense we may speak of God being 'reconciled to us': Wesley was not wrong to teach us to sing 'My God is reconciled', provided it is recognized that his language is drawn from the domain of constructive theology, and not from the narrower domain of explicit exegesis (although, we insist equally, the constructive theology is itself grounded in themes that are exegetically mandated). On the theme of penal substitution, it is still worth reflecting at length on J. I. Packer, 'What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution', Tyndale Bulletin 25 (1974), pp. 3-45. 80 David Peterson, 'Atonement,' p. 3

 

[Iconoclast]

is precisely why idolatry is so central in the Scriptures: it is, as it were, the root sin, the de-godding of God, which is, of course, Paul's point in Romans 1:18- 25. This in turn is why God's 'wrath' is personal: the offense is against him. Righteous Judge he doubtless is, but never a distanced or dispassionate judge serving a system greater than he is. Precisely because God is holy, it would be no mark of moral greatness in him if he were dispassionate or distant or uncaring when his creatures rebel against him, offend him, and cast slurs on his glory. Because he is holy, God does more than give sinners over'"' to their own deserts, a kind of pedagogical demonstration that the people he created, silly little things, have taken some unfortunate paths: this abandonment of them is judicial, a function of his wrath67, an anticipation of the great assize. 68 But because he is love, God provides a 'redemption' that simultaneously wipes out the sin of those who offend, and keeps his own 'justice' intact. This, as we shall see, is the most plausible reading of Romans 3:25b-26. God does not act whimsically, sometimes in holy wrath and sometimes in love. He always acts according to the perfections of his own character. As Peterson nicely puts it, 'A properly formulated view of penal substitution will speak of retribution being experienced by Christ because that is our due. Moreover, the penalty inflicted by God's justice and holiness is also a penalty inflicted by God's love 66 This is mentioned five times in 1:18ff. 67 Romans 1:18. 68 Romans 2:5ff.; 3:19. and mercy, for salvation and new life.'69 Nor is this the only Pauline passage where such themes come together. Space limitations forbid even a survey of 2 Corinthians 5:14-6:2,70 but it is important to see the place of 2 Corinthians 5:21 in the argument. Strangely, Travis writes, 'But God's wrath is not mentioned in the context, and the focus is in fact on Christ's death absorbing or neutralizing the effects of sin. And that does not involve notions of retribution.'7! Yet already at 5:10, Paul has established that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive recompense for what has been done in the body. Certainly in a parallel passage that treats the theme of reconciliation72 , wrath is not absent. The fact of the matter is that in Christ's reconciling work, God was 'not counting men's sins against them'. 73 Why not? Because he simply wiped them out, in the sense that he treated them as if they did not matter? No, far from it: 'God made [Christ] who had no sin to be sin74 for us. '75 It is the unjust punishment of the Servant in Isaiah 53 that is so remarkable. Forgiveness, restoration, tion, reconciliation-all are possible, not because sins have somehow been cancelled as if they never were, but because another bore them, unjustly. But by this adverb 'unjustly' I mean that the person who bore them was just, and did not deserve the punishment, not that some moral 'system' that God was administering was thereby distorted. Rather, the God against whom the offences were done pronounced sentence, and sent his Son to bear the sentence76; he made him who had no sin to be sin for us. 77 And the purpose of this substitution was that 'in him we might become the righteousness of God' .78 In this context, 'righteousness' cannot call to mind 'covenant faithfulness' or the like, for its obverse is sin.79 'The logic of 2 Corinthians 5 is that God condemns our sin in the death of his sin76 Romans 5:8. 77 2 Corinthians 5:21a. 78 c51KaloatiV1) 8EOU, 2 Corinthians 5:21b. 79 Part of the contemporary (and frequently sterile) debate over whether or not Paul teaches 'imputation,' it seems to me, turns on a failure to recognize distinct domains of discourse. Strictly speaking, Paul never uses the verb }.oyf~oJ1a/ to say, explicitly, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner or that the sinner's righteousness is imputed to Christ. So if one remains in the domain of narrow exegesis, one can say that Paul does not explicitly teach 'imputation', except to say slightly different things (e.g. that Abraham's faith was 'imputed' to him for righteousness). But if one extends the discussion into the domain of constructive theology, and observes that the Pauline texts themselves (despite the critics' contentions) teach penal substitution, then 'imputation' is merely another way of saying much the same thing. To take a related example: As Paul uses 'reconciliation' terminology, the moveless Son so that we might be justified and reconciled to him (ef. Rom. 8:1- 4,10). This "great exchange" is a reality for all who are "in him", that is, united to Christ by faith. '80 In some such frame as this, then, it is entirely coherent to think of God as both the subject and the object of propitiation. Indeed, it is the glory of the gospel of God. But let Paul have the last word: You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through ment in reconciliation is always of the sinner to God. God is never said to be reconciled to us; we must be reconciled to him.

At the level of exegesis, those are the mere facts. On the other hand, because the same exegesis also demands that we take the wrath of God seriously, and the texts insist that God takes decisive action in Christ to deal with our sin so that his wrath is averted, in that sense we may speak of God being 'reconciled to us': Wesley was not wrong to teach us to sing 'My God is reconciled', provided it is recognized that his language is drawn from the domain of constructive theology, and not from the narrower domain of explicit exegesis (although, we insist equally, the constructive theology is itself grounded in themes that are exegetically mandated). On the theme of penal substitution, it is still worth reflecting at length on J. I. Packer, 'What Did the Cross Achieve

 

[Iconoclast]

The problem is that Scripture does not present God as punishing Christ instead of punishing us. Since this is foreign to Scripture, Penal Substitution Theory cannot be correct.

Does sin go unpunished?

Fact is all sin is going to be punished.

In the sinner, or in the substitute .

You offer parts of verses that you suggest all Christians agree with, but you never clarify what you mean by

But early church theology actually necessitates the Cross. The reason is Christ needed to suffer not God's wrath but the wrath of the World. Christ did not step into God's "sin machine" but submitted Himself to the World's "sin machine" (the World's "justice").

This is why it was important for Christ not to be killed under the Law of God but instead to be handed over to die on a Roman cross, having been esteemed by His people as cursed by God.

I disagree (which I am sure you guessed ). Our salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the Law. Christ did not die under the Law.

Isaiah 53:6.
It is not theory that, "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6. The penal substitution.
n.
No. That is certainly not a theory. All Christians believe that.

You say all Christians believe this, but you redefine it taking away what it means.
In what way does the Lord lay upon Him the iniquity of us all?
You seem to limit the meaning to we die a physical death, so Jesus did also.
You ignore the consequence of Spiritual death, second death, being beaten with many stripes, being judged without mercy...you gloss over it.

 

[agedman]

This is demonstrably incorrect. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is found throughout Church history, not that it really matters, because Scripture should be our only guide.

The THEORY of penal substitution atonement was not part of early church thinking.

The vicarious atonement endorsed substitute teachings of Scriptures.

The absolute victory over Satan in which Christ announced as "all authority" is referred to as the victorious teachings of Scripture.

Paul presents a third aspect in which we believers are also to die to the flesh, and even more as Paul expressed as his own goal "to be found in Him, a partake of His sufferings, that I might also attain the resurrection."

However, none of the early church fathers present PSA theory as it is currently held for some five hundred years.

 

[Iconoclast]

There is just punishment for all sin. Sin is against Gods law.
Luke 12:47-48 ESV / 41 helpful votes
And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

Revelation 21:8 ESV / 47 helpful votes
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Isaiah 13:11 ESV / 41 helpful votes
I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.

Revelation 20:11-15 ESV / 36 helpful votes
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Hebrews 10:29 ESV / 36 helpful votes
How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

Leviticus 26:14-46 ESV / 36 helpful votes
“But if you will not listen to me and will not do all these commandments, if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my rules, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant, then I will do this to you: I will visit you with panic, with wasting disease and fever that consume the eyes and make the heart ache. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when none pursues you. And if in spite of this you will not listen to me, then I will discipline you again sevenfold for your sins, ...

1 Peter 2:24 ESV / 17 helpful votes
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Isaiah 3:11 ESV / 14 helpful votes
Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him, for what his hands have dealt out shall be done to him.

 

[agedman]

Does sin go unpunished?

Fact is all sin is going to be punished.

How? What does the Scriptures state as the remuneration for Sin?

Is it not physical death, and do not the Scriptures state that after death is the judgement?

How then did Christ take on God's punishment for sin if He, as the Scriptures state, remained without sin?

Does God actually punish the innocent, or do people supporting PSA theory contend Christ became a sinner deserving God's wrath and therefore punishing Himself?

...
You say all Christians believe this, but you redefine it taking away what it means.
In what way does the Lord lay upon Him the iniquity of us all?
You seem to limit the meaning to we die a physical death, so Jesus did also.
You ignore the consequence of Spiritual death, second death, being beaten with many stripes, being judged without mercy...you gloss over it.

Can unclean make unclean clean?

Did Christ die from taking on and becoming a sinner, or did He lay aside his physical life by His own authority and power? What do the Scriptures declare?

You assume that other theories such as Christus Victor and Ransom deny Isaiah 53. They do not; rather, they place the verses in the context of the predetermined plan of God in which the vineyard keepers are to blame as Christ presented by parable.

Christ did not die the second death. Such a teaching isn't found in Scriptures. The second death is yet to come.

 

[Iconoclast]

How? What does the Scriptures state as the remuneration for Sin?

Is it not physical death, and do not the Scriptures state that after death is the judgement?

How then did Christ take on God's punishment for sin if He, as the Scriptures state, remained without sin?

Does God actually punish the innocent, or do people supporting PSA theory contend Christ became a sinner deserving God's wrath and therefore punishing Himself?




Can unclean make unclean clean?

Did Christ die from taking on and becoming a sinner, or did He lay aside his physical life by His own authority and power? What do the Scriptures declare?

You assume that other theories such as Christus Victor and Ransom deny Isaiah 53. They do not; rather, they place the verses in the context of the predetermined plan of God in which the vineyard keepers are to blame as Christ presented by parable.

Christ did not die the second death. Such a teaching isn't found in Scriptures. The second death is yet to come.

The other deficient ideas, have one aspect of truth, but ignore key elements of the cross work. Of course Christ Jesus was victorious over all. That is not the question.

Physical death was guaranteed because of Adams sin and death, that alone is not an answer as even the elect suffer physical death. Scripture describes degrees of punishment for sins done in the body.

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


All sin is punished by God, each and every sin. God who is holy and just must punish sin. Are you suggesting our sin did not need to be punished?

 

[JonC]

Does sin go unpunished?

Fact is all sin is going to be punished.

In the sinner, or in the substitute .

You offer parts of verses that you suggest all Christians agree with, but you never clarify what you mean by








You say all Christians believe this, but you redefine it taking away what it means.
In what way does the Lord lay upon Him the iniquity of us all?
You seem to limit the meaning to we die a physical death, so Jesus did also.
You ignore the consequence of Spiritual death, second death, being beaten with many stripes, being judged without mercy...you gloss over it.

No. Sin does not go unpunished...unless they are forgiven and then the consequence of death remains. We experience the wages of sin and then the judgment. For those who are saved, they are forgiven (there is no condemnation in Christ). For those who are not there is condemnation (which is Christ-centered).

God laid our iniquities on Christ. The way is He is the Last Adam. He shared in our infirmity.

I am not glossing over the spiritual death. I am flat out denying Jesus experienced a spiritual death.

I sm not redefining any passage. I am just not adding to Scripture as you are (although I'm sure unaware of the addition).

You add secular philosophy.....like sin must be punished either in the sinner or in the substitute. This is not biblical. It is secular philosophy that was debated by secular law experts centuries ago.

I am taking Scripture as it comes. I get it is simple, but it really is simple. And it makes sence without applying legal philosophy.

This is why I can provide passages actually stating what I believe and you cannot.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

'His flesh for our flesh' and 'his life for our life.' What do these words mean if they do not mean substitution and a penalty?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The THEORY of penal substitution atonement was not part of early church thinking.

I know nothing of any 'THEORY of PSA.' I only know the Doctrine of PSA.
'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.'
'Pierced for our Transgressions' By Ovey, Jeffrey and Sach (IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-4).
I have posted this maybe a dozen times over the years. That is what Scripture teaches, what many of the Church Fathers taught, and it is what I am arguing for.

The vicarious atonement endorsed substitute teachings of Scriptures.

The absolute victory over Satan in which Christ announced as "all authority" is referred to as the victorious teachings of Scripture.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you be more clear, please?

Paul presents a third aspect in which we believers are also to die to the flesh, and even more as Paul expressed as his own goal "to be found in Him, a partake of His sufferings, that I might also attain the resurrection."

This is true so far as it goes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with PSA.

However, none of the early church fathers present PSA theory as it is currently held for some five hundred years.

The ECFs were taken up with the doctrine of the Person of Christ, and the Trinity. It took them about 400 years to get that sorted. It is fair to say that the Atonement was more than somewhat neglected by them. But where they do speak of it, they speak, albeit briefly, in terms of penal substitution, as I shall show as and when I get the time.
It is one of the glories of the Reformation that this great doctrine was rescued from the cold, dead embrace of Romanism and restored to its rightful place at the very centre of the Christian faith..

 

[JonC]

'His flesh for our flesh' and 'his life for our life.' What do these words mean if they do not mean substitution and a penalty?

Better question is what part of that does mean Penal Substitution Theory.

Christ have His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.

You see Penal Substitution Theory there. Ypu see it as God punishing Christ. BUT it is there only in your mind. It is not in the words but in your presuppositions.

 

[JonC]

I know nothing of any 'THEORY of PSA.' I only know the Doctrine of PSA.
'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.'
'Pierced for our Transgressions' By Ovey, Jeffrey and Sach (IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-4).
I have posted this maybe a dozen times over the years. That is what Scripture teaches, what many of the Church Fathers taught, and it is what I am arguing for.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you be more clear, please?

This is true so far as it goes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with PSA.

The ECFs were taken up with the doctrine of the Person of Christ, and the Trinity. It took them about 400 years to get that sorted. It is fair to say that the Atonement was more than somewhat neglected by them. But where they do speak of it, they speak, albeit briefly, in terms of penal substitution, as I shall show as and when I get the time.
It is one of the glories of the Reformation that this great doctrine was rescued from the cold, dead embrace of Romanism and restored to its rightful place at the very centre of the Christian faith..

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement includes the false doctrine that God punished Christ instead of us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Better question is what part of that does mean Penal Substitution Theory.

I'm quite happy with the question I asked, thank you.
Why don't you answer it?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement includes the false doctrine that God punished Christ instead of us.

As I say, I'm not interested in your theory. I quoted the doctrine above.

 

[JonC]

As I say, I'm not interested in your theory. I quoted the doctrine above.

I have less an issue with what you quote.

Here is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution that you quote:

'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.'

The only part that is not biblical is the word "instead" (that is a change from what the Bible says).

But I am pleased you do not care about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement - that Hod punished Christ instead of punishing us and that He took upon Himself God's wrath.

The fact you reject that false Theory puts us on more common ground.