Featured Unanswered Questions (Penal Substitution Theory)

Today? No. "On that day" for which God's wrath is stored (Judgment)? Yes.

The wicked simply will not inherit the kingdom of God, @Martin Marprelate .

 

Yes, there is more to Romans 6:23 than our physical death. There is the gift of God which is life.

What redemptive quality did Jesus death (physical death) have in terms of "paying for our sins"?

 

That is what I mean. You do not grasp the traditional faith, so obviously you do not grasp my view.

God does not clear the guilty. Judgment is rendered "on that day", and the wicked will perish. God makes the guilty no longer guilty (the guilty "old man" in us must die).

You, however, are saying that God clears the guilty.

You present God as taking the actions of the guilty, putting them on Christ and punishing them on Christ as somehow clearing our guilt.

That is nonsense.

If you commit a crime and I am convicted for the crime, and punished for the crime, you get away with it. But you are still guilty.

You are relying on divine ignorance, not divine mercy.

The guilty are guilty no matter who is punished for their crime.

The ONLY solution (the biblical solution) is that the wicked must perish, even the wicked parts of us, so that we are recreated, are new creations, formerly sinners.

Does the "old man" still live with the "new man"? Yes, unfortunately. But the "old man" must perish. You must die to sin, die to the flesh, and be re-born, @Martin Marprelate . You must be born of the Spirit, born from above.

 

Ad hominem (I'm not evading at all).

@canadyjd posted that I "seem to be equating “death” with “punishment”. Death is the consequence of sin. Punishment comes after the great throne judgment."

I am saying that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement falsely equates the two.

The consequence of sin is death. This is not divine judgment. That judgment is "stored up for that day" (Judgment).

Romans 6 does not talk only about the wages of sin. That it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment is implied in the fact that God gives life as a gift.

Your philosophy blends two things that is distinguished as separate - the wages of sin and the judgment of God against the wicked.

Note how the philosophical aspect of sinful actions being moved from people to another person, the philosophical idea that criminal actions rather than the guilty person are punished, us removed when we rely on God's Word.

Sin produces death. God gives life. The wicked will perish at Judgment (the Second death).

No stupidity about God having to punish actions, no willfully ignorant God, no pretending the righteous can justly take punishment for another's crimes, no silliness about sinful actions being moved to other people to be punished.

All die because of sin (even Christ, although He is Sinless). The wicked will be judged and perish "on that day".

Scripture itself really is enough.

 

This does not make sense to me as it has been explained many times

Why did Jesus have to die? The simple answer is that the wages of sin is death. It is appointed all men to die once and then the Judgment.

Jesus did not sin, but how else can He be one with man (if Jesus didn't die under the consequences of our sin then he could not have shared our fate).


Penal Substitution Theory holds that Christ died instead of us. Relate this to Christ's physical death.

Why did He have to die?

Under Penal Substitution Theory Christ had to take upon Himself our punishment (this is at Judgment) instead of us. But we physically die.

There is no legitimate reason, under Penal Substitution Theory, for the Cross (the actual Roman cross) or for Jesus death (in a savings sense).



Had Jesus suffered God's punishment in our place, and then came down from the cross, would we have been forgiven of our sins under your theory?

 

No. You misunderstood the definition of a term.

Ad hominem attacks the person, not the argument.

I was just wondering, based on a few replies, if people actually read my post's before arguing against them.


I do believe it is a silly idea to believe that by punishing the innocent instead of the guilty then guilty somehow becomes innocent.

I do believe it is a pretty stupid idea to believe God takes criminal actions, transfers them from the criminal to an innocent person, and punished those actions on the innocent person as a form of justice.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement would not be articulated today because most Christians would quickly realize it depends on stupidity. That is one reason it has become an obstacle to the gospel of Jesus Christ (people are taught it, they read their Bibles and discover it is not actually there). It depends on a 16th century judicial philosophy that is no longer considered valid.

And yes, it depends on God punishing the Righteous instead of the wicked as if the Righteous were wicked (willful ignorance).

It is reformed Roman Catholic atonement (Aquinas reworked), and it is vain philosophy.
That does not mean those who hold it are stupid. They are ignorant, but not stupid. And they are no less Christian.

I held it for most of my Christian life. I wasn't stupid. I wasn't less Christian. But I was ignorant.


Anyway, it wasn't ad hominem (by definition of ad hominem). Same would apply to those who find a straight forward reading of "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus" as stupid as it isn't calling me stupid for holding that to be true).

 

Interesting.

So you are equally opposed to those who criticize my view as "unbiblical" (a much worse lable than I put on the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

I appreciate your support on that, but it does not bother me. I understand that it is because that is how they view my position, so it doesn't bother me at all.

 

I agree that God is just and the justifier of sinners and that he justified the ungodly. But this is not what we are talking about.

We were talking about actually clearing the guilty.

You presented God as clearing the guilty by punishing the criminal activities of the guilty laid on the innocent. But that is clearing the guilty.

I said that God recreates the guilty into new creations (not clearing the guilty but making actual new creations).

 

You mistake holding the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as "conservative" and "Baptist". It is neither.

Presbyterians and Methodists hold Penal Substitution Theory. They are not Baptist.

Also, the largest Baptist denomination is the SBC and Penal Substitution Theory is debated within the SBC (most affirm the Theory but many do not...the many includes SBC pastors, theologians and seminary professors).

Of the liberal Baptists within evangelical Baptist churches in America most hold Penal Substitution Theory.

The most conservative baptist churches have held to a classic view of Atonement and rejected Penal Substitution Theory very strongly. Unfortunately many of these became legalistic, but to call them "liberal" would be an error in judgment.



As far as administrators using multiple screen names, you need to report this. Staff members are members and cannot have multiple accounts. Salty can easily check for multiple accounts, and if this is the case the accounts need to be merged.