What is Penal Substitution Atonement

[The Biblicist]

My complaint is that you find Christ's suffering and death insufficient except it take the form of retributive punishment.

Don't put words in my mouth that I repudiate!!! Christ provided LEGAL SATISFACTION as defined by Law. Where there is no LEGAL satisfaction there is no JUST satisfaction. HIs punishment was JUST in his role as a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE for sin. The term "substitute" is meaningless in your theory as your theory denies he acted as our substitute in death as the Bible defines death. The term "satisfaction" is meaningless in your view as it has nothing to do with the LEGAL and LAWFUL conseqences of sin as defined by Law.

You also ignore the nature of a covenant and this significance in Christ's death.

False again! The covenant is based upon God's JUSTICE which you repudiate as the grounds for defining SATISFACTION or SUBSTITUTION.

Your view of the atonement is a half truth and therefore false.

 

[The Biblicist]

Don't be foolish. I never denied Christ's death. I am saying Christ is sufficient (a point you keep denying).

Can't read too well can you? I never denied you believed in Christ's death! I said your "view" of satisfaction does not require death but only requires righteousness as the basis for satisfaction. You repudiate any LEGAL basis as you understand "legal" basis to be "retributive" and you deny satisfaction has any "retributive" necessity. Since "sin" is by Biblical definition the LEGAL basis for "death" with regard to SATISFYING the Law then your position denies the necessity of Christ's death other than a mere fulfillment of type and thus considered part of his "obedience" rather than satisfaction of justice in the role of a "substitute" before Law.

 

[JonC]

Don't put words in my mouth that I repudiate!!! Christ provided LEGAL SATISFACTION as defined by Law. Where there is no LEGAL satisfaction there is no JUST satisfaction. HIs punishment was JUST in his role as a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE for sin. The term "substitute" is meaningless in your theory as your theory denies he acted as our substitute in death as the Bible defines death. The term "satisfaction" is meaningless in your view as it has nothing to do with the LEGAL and LAWFUL conseqences of sin as defined by Law.


False again! The covenant is based upon God's JUSTICE which you repudiate as the grounds for defining SATISFACTION or SUBSTITUTION.

Your view of the atonement is a half truth and therefore false.

Again, your teaching here is fairly new to Christianity. Perhaps this explains its humanistic flavor. Christ fulfilled the Law. He died under the law. He became a curse for us. But nowhere in Scripture does it say this was retributive punishment.

 

[JonC]

Can't read too well can you? I never denied you believed in Christ's death! I said your "view" of satisfaction does not require death but only requires righteousness as the basis for satisfaction. You repudiate any LEGAL basis as you understand "legal" basis to be "retributive" and you deny satisfaction has any "retributive" necessity. Since "sin" is by Biblical definition the LEGAL basis for "death" with regard to SATISFYING the Law then your position denies the necessity of Christ's death other than a mere fulfillment of type and thus considered part of his "obedience" rather than satisfaction of justice.

Then you are simply wrong. Christ put on "sinful flesh", he died under the law, he had to experience death to redeem us from death. Do you not understand that death is judgment against man?????

 

[The Biblicist]

Then you are simply wrong.

LOL!! We will let the readers decide who is wrong or right. However, your view repudiates death as any necessary aspect of satisfaction for JUSTICE against sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, your teaching here is fairly new to Christianity. Perhaps this explains its humanistic flavor. Christ fulfilled the Law. He died under the law. He became a curse for us. But nowhere in Scripture does it say this was retributive punishment.

What heretic hasn't used this argument. Look at the foolishness of your statement - "Christ fulfilled THE LAW. He died UNDER THE LAW. He became a CURSE FOR US. But nowhere in Scripture does it say this was LAWFUL punishment" Yes, I substituted the word "lawful" for "retributive" because you define JUST or LAWFUL punishment to be "retributive" as though it is an act of revenge. [edit].

 

[The Biblicist]

Can't read too well can you? I never denied you believed in Christ's death! I said your "view" of satisfaction does not require death but only requires righteousness as the basis for satisfaction. You repudiate any LEGAL basis as you understand "legal" basis to be "retributive" and you deny satisfaction has any "retributive" necessity. Since "sin" is by Biblical definition the LEGAL basis for "death" with regard to SATISFYING the Law then your position denies the necessity of Christ's death other than a mere fulfillment of type and thus considered part of his "obedience" rather than satisfaction of justice in the role of a "substitute" before Law.

Readers, let this post sink in. Jon's position logically repudiates the death of Christ as a necessity for JUST satisfaction against sin. The death of Christ only fits in his theory under "obedience" rather than any LEGAL and SUBSTITIONARY NECESSITY for satisfaction against sin.

 

[JonC]

What heretic hasn't used this argument. Look at the foolishness of your statement - "Christ fulfilled THE LAW. He died UNDER THE LAW. He became a CURSE FOR US. But nowhere in Scripture does it say this was LAWFUL punishment" Yes, I substituted the word "lawful" for "retributive" because you define JUST or LAWFUL punishment to be "retributive" as though it is an act of revenge. [edit].

Retributive punishment is not "revenge". Your misunderstanding is due to a lack of a dictionary (which is unforgivable given we are on computers).

 

[JonC]

Readers, let this post sink in. Jon's position logically repudiates the death of Christ as a necessity for JUST satisfaction against sin. The death of Christ only fits in his theory under "obedience" rather than any LEGAL and SUBSTITIONARY NECESSITY for satisfaction against sin.

Again, you are making false accusations.

READERS - LET THIS SINK IN.

ALL THIS STARTED WHEN I ASKED @The Biblicist FOR A PASSAGE SPECIFICALLY AFFIRMING CERTAIN POINTS OF HIS DOCTRINE. HE HAS RESPONDED BY PROVIDING THE SMOKE-SCREEN WE SEE HERE RATHER THAN PROVIDING BIBLICAL EVIDENCE HIS THEORY IS CORRECT.

 

[JonC]

LOL!! We will let the readers decide who is wrong or right. However, your view repudiates death as any necessary aspect of satisfaction for JUSTICE against sin.

I don't care about the readers. I'm discussing this with you. Even my "appeal to the readers" on the last post was just a reminder to you that all I asked for was a passage affirming your position. You have not only failed to provide one, but you've gone on the attack - throwing dust and smoke in the air like an animal cornered.

Be a man and appeal to me, not your "readers".

Is there a passage of Scripture that presents Divine Justice as Retributive Justice? Is there a passage of Scripture that describes the Cross as God being wrathful towards Jesus as God laid upon Him our iniquities? If so, let's discuss those. But let's discuss those like Christian men.

 

[The Biblicist]

Retributive punishment is not "revenge". Your misunderstanding is due to a lack of a dictionary (which is unforgivable given we are on computers).

You view it as a "payback" or to "get even" type of penalty which is more akin to revenge than JUST recompense or a RIGHTEOUS application of Law. BTW "retributive" can be defined as "payback".

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, you are making false accusations.

READERS - LET THIS SINK IN.

ALL THIS STARTED WHEN I ASKED @The Biblicist FOR A PASSAGE SPECIFICALLY AFFIRMING CERTAIN POINTS OF HIS DOCTRINE. HE HAS RESPONDED BY PROVIDING THE SMOKE-SCREEN WE SEE HERE RATHER THAN PROVIDING BIBLICAL EVIDENCE HIS THEORY IS CORRECT.

What a falsehood! I have provided Biblical text after Biblical text. Particularly Isaiah 53:10-11 and the laying on of hands by the priest on the day of Atonment (Lev. 16).

However, this is all a ruse to avoid his problem - his view repudiates the death of Christ as necessary for LAWFUL satisfaction against sin.

 

[JonC]

You view it as a "payback" or to "get even" type of penalty which is more akin to revenge than JUST recompense or a RIGHTEOUS application of Law. BTW "retributive" can be defined as "payback".

No, this is yet another false accusation.

And yes, I know "retributive" can be defined as "payback". But I specifically said "retributive punishment" and "retributive justice". You are being dishonest here.

 

[JonC]

What a falsehood! I have provided Biblical text after Biblical text. Particularly Isaiah 53:10-11 and the laying on of hands by the priest on the day of Atonment (Lev. 16).

You provided a passage but inserted your own commentary. I'm saying that in this case you need to provide a passage that states those priests viewed themselves as punishing the animal with the punishment they deserved.

However, this is all a ruse to avoid his problem - his view repudiates the death of Christ as necessary for LAWFUL satisfaction against sin.

Again, a false accusation. I'm sure an honest mistake, but you really should be more careful.

Don't worry.....you'll only have a few more posts to survive without providing Scripture. I'm sure we're about at the limit here.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't care about the readers. I'm discussing this with you. Even my "appeal to the readers" on the last post was just a reminder to you that all I asked for was a passage affirming your position. You have not only failed to provide one, but you've gone on the attack - throwing dust and smoke in the air like an animal cornered.

Be a man and appeal to me, not your "readers".

More double talk (as you confess you are guilty of what you are condemning me for and denying I am a man). However, I would rather appeal to the readers as talking to a wall is worthless.

Is there a passage of Scripture that presents Divine Justice as Retributive Justice? Is there a passage of Scripture that describes the Cross as God being wrathful towards Jesus as God laid upon Him our iniquities? If so, let's discuss those. But let's discuss those like Christian men.

The scriptures have been presented time and time again. It is the Father that laid upon him our iniquities. It is the Father that sent him to the cross. It is the Father that is satisfied by the "travail of his soul." Sin is a LEGAL consequence and God is the LAWGIVER and he was "made to be sin for us" and that phrase has no meaning apart from DIVINE JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

Again, your view repudiates the necessity of Christ's death to SATISFY JUSTICE against sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, this is yet another false accusation.

And yes, I know "retributive" can be defined as "payback". But I specifically said "retributive punishment" and "retributive justice". You are being dishonest here.

You are multiplying words to cover your error. Drop the term "retributive" and simply use the term r "JUST" or "LAWFUL" or punishment prescribed by God's LAW. You won't drop it because it makes you look bad if the truth of your position is spelled out as a position that repudiates JUST consequences or LAWFUL consequences. Your view denies/repudiates that the death of Christ was necessary to satisfy JUSTICE.

 

[JonC]

You are multiplying words to cover your error. Drop the term "retributive" and simply use the term r "JUST" or "LAWFUL" or punishment prescribed by God's LAW. You won't drop it because it makes you look bad if the truth of your position is spelled out as a position that repudiates JUST consequences or LAWFUL consequences.

"You are multiplying words" that has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. We are talking about the Atonement and I use TERMS like "retributive punishment" and "retributive justice" and you think it's just "multiplying words"????

I won't drop it because you are being foolish now. We could have had a decent conversation...awhile back...but this tops the cake.

More double talk (as you confess you are guilty of what you are condemning me for and denying I am a man). However, I would rather appeal to the readers as talking to a wall is worthless.



The scriptures have been presented time and time again. It is the Father that laid upon him our iniquities. It is the Father that sent him to the cross. It is the Father that is satisfied by the "travail of his soul." Sin is a LEGAL consequence and God is the LAWGIVER and he was "made to be sin for us" and that phrase has no meaning apart from DIVINE JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

Again, your view repudiates the necessity of Christ's death to SATISFY JUSTICE against sin.

I'm not denying you are a man, but simply asking that you "man up".

Is there a passage of Scripture that affirms the priest viewed himself as punishing the animal with the punishment due Israel? If this is your stand, and your proof, then stop avoiding the request and provide Scripture.

Where @Martin Marprelate could not see how Luther's view departed from PSA you can discern the difference. But you go too far in ascribing to Luther views he did not hold. And then you ascribe those to me. Stop blowing smoke and falsely accusing me of positions I've never held or statements I've never made.

And buy a dictionary. If this is our quarterly quarrel then it's almost over. But next time I'd appreciate it if you could deal with multiple-word terms instead of pulling them apart to ascribe to them unintended meanings.

 

[The Biblicist]

"You are multiplying words" that has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. We are talking about the Atonement and I use TERMS like "retributive punishment" and "retributive justice" and you think it's just "multiplying words"????

I won't drop it because you are being foolish now. We could have had a decent conversation...awhile back...but this tops the cake.

Of course you won't drop that terminology because if you used the terms the Bible provides (Just, righteous, lawful, etc.) would reveal what your view is - foolish and false.

You want scripture, how about this one:


5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall 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.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:

Do you deny that in verse 6 and verse 10 it is the Lord that did these things to him? We all agree that with regard to his own person he was sinless and did not justly deserve any of this ACCORDING TO GODS JUST AND HOLY LAW. May I ask you what JUST basis did God have for doing these things to a righteous man FOR SINNERS OR IN BEHALF OF SINNERS? How could God be righteous and "be PLEASED to bruise him and...put him to grief" for sinners? Can you provide a JUST or LEGAL basis without resorting to HIS LAW? Must it not be found in the substitutionary nature of the sacrificial system UNDER LAW?

 

[JonC]

Of course you won't drop that terminology because if you used the terms the Bible provides (Just, righteous, lawful, etc.) would reveal what your view is - foolish and false.

You want scripture, how about this one:


5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall 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.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:

Do you deny that in verse 6 and verse 10 it is the Lord that did these things to him? We all agree that with regard to his own person he was sinless and did not justly deserve any of this ACCORDING TO GODS JUST AND HOLY LAW. May I ask you what JUST basis did God have for doing these things to a righteous man FOR SINNERS OR IN BEHALF OF SINNERS? How could God be righteous and "be PLEASED to bruise him and...put him to grief" for sinners? Can you provide a JUST basis without resorting to HIS LAW?

Try again. Those biblical words are what I believe. Scripture speaks of God's justice. You turn this into retributive justice. And you are right, it isn't biblical.

The just basis comes in as God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. God laid our iniquity on Him. But Jesus died to fulfill the Law - not to restore it but to nail it on a tree.

Please provide a passage stating Christ came to restore, rather than to fulfill, the Law.

And no, I do not nor have I ever denied that God laid our iniquity on Christ nor that it was His will to offer His Son as a guilt offering. This is not where we disagree.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let's not play with terms. By "blood" of the atonement is meant DEATH or shedding blood UNTO DEATH. There is no remission of sins without DEATH. That is the LEGAL basis for remission of sins. The term "sins" is the LEGAL consequence of violation of THE LAW. Christ's death was a LEGAL NECESSITY for SATIFYING the wrath of God. The wrath of God is his response to violation of HIS LAW. Hence, there is no such thing as "satisfaction" for sin apart from the death of Christ. His righteousness cannot satisfy the violation of the law. Only his death can satisfy the violation of the Law. Hence where there is no LEGAL satsifaction with regard to law there is no satisfaction with regard to sin.