Unanswered Questions (Penal Substitution Theory)

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree that God punished the wicked at the Judgment. I wouldn't call that a "need" on the part of God, but I agree with you that at the Judgment the wicked will be punished.

One issue is that this is not unique to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Most (all that I know of) theories of Atonement hold that in that "court" (Judgment) the wicked will be punished.

The difference is that Penal Substitution holds that those in Christ also stand condemned EXCEPT that Christ was already punished in their place.

That is unbiblical because it ignores recreation (that "in that court" the Christian has already died to sin, was made a "new creation's, his old heart removed).

It ignores or minimalizes regeneration in terms of salvation. Men are recreated without condemnation (that are made new creatures in Christ, in whom there is no condemnation).

We don't stand before God as wicked men whose sins have already been punished. We stand before God as new creations in Christ.

Are you today perfectly sinless, JonC?
If you are not then you will stand before God as a sinner at the Last Day. Your only hope is the blood of Christ shed for sinners on the cross. Or are you a better man than Paul? 'O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!'

 

[DaveXR650]

My question was that we all die a physical death then how is Christ dying a physical death in our stead?

What you are doing there is proving that there is more to Romans 6:23 than our physical death, which is a reality for all men. But our physical death being tied like you are doing to the validity of Christ's sacrificial death is a false connection which you have made up. There is no problem or contradiction with me as a human having a destiny with physical death - and Christ dying in my stead to provide an atonement for my sins and give me eternal life.

My statement was that it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. Christ had to die a physical death in order to have solidarity with man. He had to suffer what sin produces (physical death). And He had to be Sinless (judged righteous, vindicated, raised on the third day).

Christ's dying did certainly prove his humanity. And he suffered what sin produces but I would add that includes guilt, punishment, and the wrath of God. Shed blood is proof of a death that is inflicted. And because he was sinless, he was suffering vicariously for us, not for anything he had done. The thing wrong with that statement is related more to what you carefully avoid - the idea that the "solidarity" with man includes taking mans sin upon himself as to the guilt and wrath of God.

You disagree with that (which is fine), but how do you read that to mean Christ did not have to die?

I have written so much on this but I don't think I ever said he did not have to die. I am saying that without penal substitution Christ did not have to die. Christ dying as an act of solidarity is what I reject if it is proposed by someone who is consciously and deliberately rejecting penal substitution. If you believe Christ was taking the burden of our sin upon himself at the cross and then you say he died in solidarity with us I have no problem. I think this is a deliberate evasion of the truth of what the atonement is.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is strange that you refuse to answer my questions (as I asked first) until I answer yours, but that is fine.

Yes, all theories believe that God will not clear the guilty.

If you believe Classic Christianity held that God was clearing the guilty then you have not grasped biblical Christian faith.

I do not believe Classic Christianity held that God was clearing the guilty, I believe that you hold to it, and you have now confirmed it.

God does not clear the guilty.
God does not condemn the Righteous.

Those are eternal truths. God delivering the Righteous from suffering and death inflicted by the wicked is even an important theme of Psalm 22. So this is, as you point out, vital to the Cross.

So far, so good. But we haven't got very far.

Your mistake is numbering those who are saved among the wicked, among the guilty. We are not.

We must die to sin. We must be made alive in Christ. The "old man" is guilty. The "new man" is not.

We are made "new creations", where there is "no condemnation". You see, God takes our old heart out and gives us a new one. God gives us a new spirit, puts His Spirit in us.

If you are the same person you were naturally born as then you are guilty and will be cast into the Lake of Fire when God judges man.

Your mistake is that you are equating God not clearing the guilty and not punishing the Righteous with God having to punish bad actions.

Instead God re-creates man into something new.

Do you see what's missing in all that? Any mention of the cross of Christ. If all I need is a new birth then there was no need for Christ to come, much less for Him to die. You are still a sinner, just like me. Your new birth has not made you perfect, and you still need a Saviour. 'For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.' I tell you this before God: unless Jesus Christ has made full satisfaction to the justice of God for your sins, first of all you are not born again, but if (impossibly) you were, you would still not be saved because your sins would not be forgiven. Now you can throw me off the board for that if you want, but I have delivered my soul

The issue with God clearing the guilty is with Penal Substitution Theory, not Classic Christianity.

Penal Substitution is classic Christianity.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God punished the sins of the guilty laid on the innocent to clear the guilty

No. Penal Substitution is God Himself in Christ Jesus receiving the wages of sin on our behalf, so that He may be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

Classic Christianity holds that the guilty must die, must be made into a new creation.

That is not classic Christianity; it is Christless Christianity. Classic Christianity holds that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners

 

[DaveXR650]

I do believe forgiveness is granted upon repentance. And I do believe repentance is accomplished only through Christ. But not because Christ "paid for our sins". Christ didn't pay for our sins, He died for our sins (our sins were the cause of His death). He paid for US. He ransomed US.

More evasion. He didn't pay for our sins but he did die for our sins. When clearly our sins have a "wage" of death and it is positioned along side the gift of God, which is only through Jesus Christ our Lord. And your only tactic left is to evade this by trying to make Romans 6:23 talk about our physical death only - which we all agree will be certain no matter what.
Forgiveness is granted upon repentance, but God acts according to his nature which includes justice. To do otherwise goes against other scripture. Mercy does not need to mean gratuitous forgiveness that leaves injustice unpunished. But mercy can be providing a just way of being made right with God. But for that to happen there had to be some type of satisfaction done by Christ at the atonement.

 

[JonC]

Are you today perfectly sinless, JonC?
If you are not then you will stand before God as a sinner at the Last Day. Your only hope is the blood of Christ shed for sinners on the cross. Or are you a better man than Paul? 'O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!'

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 .

 

[JonC]

What you are doing there is proving that there is more to Romans 6:23 than our physical death, which is a reality for all men. But our physical death being tied like you are doing to the validity of Christ's sacrificial death is a false connection which you have made up. There is no problem or contradiction with me as a human having a destiny with physical death - and Christ dying in my stead to provide an atonement for my sins and give me eternal life.

Christ's dying did certainly prove his humanity. And he suffered what sin produces but I would add that includes guilt, punishment, and the wrath of God. Shed blood is proof of a death that is inflicted. And because he was sinless, he was suffering vicariously for us, not for anything he had done. The thing wrong with that statement is related more to what you carefully avoid - the idea that the "solidarity" with man includes taking mans sin upon himself as to the guilt and wrath of God.

I have written so much on this but I don't think I ever said he did not have to die. I am saying that without penal substitution Christ did not have to die. Christ dying as an act of solidarity is what I reject if it is proposed by someone who is consciously and deliberately rejecting penal substitution. If you believe Christ was taking the burden of our sin upon himself at the cross and then you say he died in solidarity with us I have no problem. I think this is a deliberate evasion of the truth of what the atonement is.

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"?

 

[JonC]

I do not believe Classic Christianity held that God was clearing the guilty, I believe that you hold to it, and you have now confirmed it.

So far, so good. But we haven't got very far.

Do you see what's missing in all that? Any mention of the cross of Christ. If all I need is a new birth then there was no need for Christ to come, much less for Him to die. You are still a sinner, just like me. Your new birth has not made you perfect, and you still need a Saviour. 'For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.' I tell you this before God: unless Jesus Christ has made full satisfaction to the justice of God for your sins, first of all you are not born again, but if (impossibly) you were, you would still not be saved because your sins would not be forgiven. Now you can throw me off the board for that if you want, but I have delivered my soul

Penal Substitution is classic Christianity.

No. Penal Substitution is God Himself in Christ Jesus receiving the wages of sin on our behalf, so that He may be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

That is not classic Christianity; it is Christless Christianity. Classic Christianity holds that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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.

As stated by others, this view negates the need for Jesus to die on the cross. God regenerates (in this view) and that clears the guilty.

Where is the necessity of the cross in this view?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

More evasion. He didn't pay for our sins but he did die for our sins. When clearly our sins have a "wage" of death and it is positioned along side the gift of God, which is only through Jesus Christ our Lord. And your only tactic left is to evade this by trying to make Romans 6:23 talk about our physical death only - which we all agree will be certain no matter what.
Forgiveness is granted upon repentance, but God acts according to his nature which includes justice. To do otherwise goes against other scripture. Mercy does not need to mean gratuitous forgiveness that leaves injustice unpunished. But mercy can be providing a just way of being made right with God. But for that to happen there had to be some type of satisfaction done by Christ at the atonement.

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.

 

[JonC]

As stated by others, this view negates the need for Jesus to die on the cross. God regenerates (in this view) and that clears the guilty.

Where is the necessity of the cross in this view?

peace to you

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?

 

[canadyjd]

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

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.

“Stupidity”
“Willfully ignorant God”
“Silliness”

Thanks for the lecture on ad hominid attacks. Well done

I appear to have stepped into a discussion that has been going on for some time. I hope you all get it all figured out.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[taisto]

I do not believe Classic Christianity held that God was clearing the guilty, I believe that you hold to it, and you have now confirmed it.

So far, so good. But we haven't got very far.

Do you see what's missing in all that? Any mention of the cross of Christ. If all I need is a new birth then there was no need for Christ to come, much less for Him to die. You are still a sinner, just like me. Your new birth has not made you perfect, and you still need a Saviour. 'For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.' I tell you this before God: unless Jesus Christ has made full satisfaction to the justice of God for your sins, first of all you are not born again, but if (impossibly) you were, you would still not be saved because your sins would not be forgiven. Now you can throw me off the board for that if you want, but I have delivered my soul

Penal Substitution is classic Christianity.

No. Penal Substitution is God Himself in Christ Jesus receiving the wages of sin on our behalf, so that He may be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

That is not classic Christianity; it is Christless Christianity. Classic Christianity holds that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners

Amen, brother, you have spoken to the heart of the matter with clarity and conviction. [Snip] Thank you for your clarity and making a stand for truth.

 

[JonC]

“Stupidity”
“Willfully ignorant God”
“Silliness”

Thanks for the lecture on ad hominid attacks. Well done

I appear to have stepped into a discussion that has been going on for some time. I hope you all get it all figured out.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

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).

 

[canadyjd]

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).

Thank you for increasing my understanding of false accusations during a debate. I obviously don’t have a lot of experience in that area.

Making excuses, however, for using insulting language in a debate isn’t particularly better, imo.

peace to you

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

I believe that God justifies the ungodly, and praise Him for it every day.
And yes, I believe that God has laid upon Christ the iniquities of us all, and that He was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. I believe that God set Him forth as a propitiation so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

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

It's the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 1:21.

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

Galatians 5:7-8.

I have had enough of this now. I had some free time and pitched in. But now I have sermons to prepare, Bible Studies to lead, meetings to attend and others can defend the truth as well as I can.

 

[JonC]

Thank you for increasing my understanding of false accusations during a debate. I obviously don’t have a lot of experience in that area.

Making excuses, however, for using insulting language in a debate isn’t particularly better, imo.

peace to you

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.

 

[JonC]

I believe that God justifies the ungodly, and praise Him for it every day.
And yes, I believe that God has laid upon Christ the iniquities of us all, and that He was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. I believe that God set Him forth as a propitiation so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.
It's the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 1:21.

Galatians 5:7-8.

I have had enough of this now. I had some free time and pitched in. But now I have sermons to prepare, Bible Studies to lead, meetings to attend and others can defend the truth as well as I can.

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).

 

[Marooncat79]

Personally

I cannot believe that I am on a “Baptist Board” that claims to be conservative, and yet having to debate Penal Substitutionary Atonement

oh, and a couple of the Admins deny it.

BTW, I am quite sure that there is at least one Admin. on here using multiple screen names.

I would expect that in a couple of other “groups”. Not here

 

[JonC]

Personally

I cannot believe that I am on a “Baptist Board” that claims to be conservative, and yet having to debate Penal Substitutionary Atonement

oh, and a couple of the Admins deny it.

BTW, I am quite sure that there is at least one Admin. on here using multiple screen names.

I would expect that in a couple of other “groups”. Not here

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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 do believe you referred to my belief as unbiblical first, and I shared your use of constructive criticism.

I didn’t realize you believed calling your beliefs “unbiblical” was different from you calling my beliefs unbiblical. Let’s review your post#13.

…..
The difference is that Penal Substitution holds that those in Christ also stand condemned EXCEPT that Christ was already punished in their place.

That is unbiblical because it ignores recreation (that "in that court" the Christian has already died to sin, was made a "new creation's, his old heart removed). ….

So, you apparently didn’t realize you called PSA “unbiblical” or you simply make a distinction between you referring to someone else’s beliefs as unbiblical and someone referring to your belief as unbiblical.

Whatever the case, it is extremely difficult to maintain a meaningful conversation with you, so I will bow out now.

peace to you