Why you must understand PSA

[percho]

Yes. Tyndale is right. The resurrection has to be true or we are still in our sins. But it is wrong to center our redemption on the resurrection if this is being done with the intention of doing away with the centrality of Christ's death. Horatius Bonar goes into this in some detail. There is a particular heresy that does this and I came across it but cannot remember where it was. In general, at some point it is simply a fact that what we are describing as penal substitution best describes the actual accomplishing of our redemption.

Correct, the center is, the death of the soul who did not sin, yet gave his life, died.

The soul that sins it shall die. ----------- For how long? How long will the soul that sins be dead?
What about the soul that did not sin yet pours out his soul unto death?
Why would the soul that did not sin give his life? Did the soul that did not sin have faith in the promise of God, who cannot lie? The promise made before the beginning of time.

The hope of eternal life. The faith of Gal 3:23-25 was the soul that did not sin, pouring out his soul unto death predicated upon the promise of God.

The resurrection of Christ was the fulfillment of that promise.

IMHO

 

[Arthur King]

I think you are being a bit silly here. @Marooncat79 has already answered you. The first and most important fact of the gospel Paul preached was that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). If Christ had not died, He could not have risen. But no one here denies the importance of the Resurrection. 'Who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.'

The problem is that the penal substitution narrative describes the death of Jesus as salvific in and of itself without the resurrection. Jesus rising from the dead is not necessary for salvation on the penal substitution narrative. That is a serious problem.

 

[JonC]

From Ligonier


MACARTHUR: If you don’t understand the doctrine of penal substitution, you don’t know why Christ died. You would assume that if you’re a Christian, you would want to know why Christ died.

In 2 Corinthians 5:18–21, Paul says that we are ambassadors. We go into the world and beg people to be reconciled to God. He’s given us the Word of reconciliation. That’s the message we preach: “You can be reconciled to God.” We have the ministry of reconciliation and the message of reconciliation. But how is it possible for a sinner to be reconciled to a holy God? That is the most legitimate question a sinner could ever ask: “If God is holy, righteous, and perfect, how is it possible for me to be reconciled to a holy God without Him tarnishing His holiness?” To put it in the language of Paul, How can God be “just and the justifier” of sinners? (Rom. 3:26). That is the absolute apex question of all religion.

The primary question that religion attempts to answer, whatever god a religion espouses, is: “How can I go from being God’s enemy to being His friend? How can I make peace with God?” All religion is designed to somehow come to terms with the deity. In Christianity, the question is built around holiness, justice, and righteousness: “How can God forgive me and still be holy?” The only thing that answers that question is penal substitution.

Penal substitution says God is so holy that every sin will be punished. Every single sin in the life of every Christian believer through all of human history was punished. All sin must be punished. Either the sinner will bear that punishment eternally, or Christ took that punishment on the cross. The only thing that protects the pure, righteous holiness of God is that sin is punished. That’s penal substitution. If you remove that part of the cross, then how does God reconcile His holiness with wishing sin away without a punishment? There has to be a punishment for God to maintain His justice. That punishment falls on His Son.

BINGHAM: I can remember before I became a Christian, but at a time when I had heard the gospel a number of times, sitting down with the woman who is now my wife and asking her: “Explain to me John 3:16. Why did God have to send His Son? Why did Jesus have to die? Why didn’t God bake brownies to save the world? What’s this whole dying on the cross thing?” At the time, she couldn’t answer the question. We had to go into church and try to get information about penal substitution because all the gospel presentations I’d heard were missing that phrase.

MACARTHUR: You see, that is the question. Penal substitution is not some kind of optional issue. You’ve got a massive problem if God just says, “Hey, you’re forgiven.” The character of God would be called into question as to His integrity, His holiness, His virtue, His righteousness, and His perfection. God is so pure and holy that He will punish every single sin ever committed by every person, either in that person or in the substitute for that person. That is the purest heart of Christianity and soteriology.

MacArthur makes a serious error. What he should have said, as his opinion, is that if you do not accept Penal Substitution . . .

Reading arguments over these past few weeks it is an error others make as well. The issue is not understand, so continuing to explain why people believe Penal Substitution is not a solution. The issue is rejecting Penal Substitution based on what is actually written in God's Word.

Penal Substitution is simplistic. It is not difficult to understand. It is benign in the sense it makes no demands of the believer. Were men to choose an atonement it would be Penal Substitution.

The issue is Scripture. No matter how it is worded Penal Substitution is extra-biblical in the sense it is not in God's Word. It is what minority of Christians believe the Bible teaches. Others, like myself, believe the Bible teaches what is written in its text.

 

[Alan Gross]

No one has denied the resurrection

scripture states that just as Christ was raised from the dead so we to are raised

the atonement and the resurrection are paramount to the Christian faith

It is shameful that the Atonement of Jesus Christ could be attempted to be neutered, to render Christianity with no more than any Pagan has.

"IT IS THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF CHRISTIANITY."

Christianity is the only religion with an atonement.

It is related that some years ago, when there was held a Parliament of Religion at the World's Fair in Chicago, Joseph Cook, of Boston, the chosen spokesman for Christianity, arose, after other religions had been presented,

and said: "Here is Lady Macbeth's hands, stained with the foul murder of King Duncan. See her as she perambulates through the halls and corridors of her palatial home, stopping to cry, 'Out damned spot! Out, I say! Will these hands ne'er be clean?"

The representative of Christianity turned to the advocates of other religions and triumphantly challenged:

"Can any of you who are so anxious to propagate your religious systems offer any cleansing efficacy for the sin and guilt of Lady Macbeth's crime?"

They were speechless; for none of them had an atonement to offer.

 

[Marooncat79]

The Resurrection of the believer to Eternal Life is impossible w/o faith in the atoning work of Christ

the Resurrection of the believer is totally dependent upon the atonement.

the Resurrection does not stand alone

 

[Marooncat79]

Personal faith in the atonement guarantees right standing in the Resurrection for the believer

 

[Marooncat79]

Let me follow up

To deny PSA is by de facto denying justification and imputation.

I am hoping that everyone on here (with the exception of 2- whom may be the same person Idk) knows and understands forensic justification?

imputation is us exchanging our sin for Christs Righteousness and Him agreeing to take on our sin at the Cross

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC . Re post 20. Christ's death and shed blood is what provided the actual means for our salvation. The propitiation for us. I don't want to get into the role of faith, or of things required on our part, here, but at the most basic level it seems God required this.
(I'm sorry but I can't highlight then quote from this device.)

Paul based our ability to know we can rely on Christ for our salvation on the resurrection. He regarded it as proof of the claims of Christ. But if you are asking what actually atones for sin it was not the resurrection. These things cannot be reduced beyond a certain point but you can't explain everything every time you respond. When I was a kid it was popular to say to catholics that their portrayal of crucifixes "Left Jesus on the cross". I assure you that is not what MacArthur or Owen do and I doubt it's what the RC's were doing. With the concept of our union with Christ the resurrection means we can live a new life in God's kingdom. When someone is baptized you will hear the phrase "raised to walk in newness of life".

But if someone is coming up with a doctrine that bases Christianity on an unjust execution that would have been better for us had it not happened and then your faith is a trust in the resurrection I think that's an error.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Were men to choose an atonement it would be Penal Substitution.

On the contrary, the reason why so many hate the doctrine of Penal Substitution is that it exalts Christ and reduces man to helplessness. This is abominable to pride and self-sufficiency.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The problem is that the penal substitution narrative describes the death of Jesus as salvific in and of itself without the resurrection. Jesus rising from the dead is not necessary for salvation on the penal substitution narrative. That is a serious problem.

This is not so, and is just a random stone that you have picked up to throw in the absence of anything substantial to say.. Through the resurrection we understand that Christ was who He said He was (Romans 1:4) and that God has accepted the propitiation wrought by Him so that He can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The resurrection of Jesus is the central answer to the human problem, and the central answer to the question of why Jesus died

If the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus is the central answer to the human problem, why did He have to spend 33 years on earth, and why did He have to die such a terrible death? More specifically, why did He refuse the wine mixed with myrrh (Mark 15:23)? He could have popped down to earth for the weekend, died instantly from cardiac arrest and been raised. Why would that have been a problem?

 

[Van]

Who would conclude if Christ died for our sins, referring to those born anew, it means Christ did not die for the sins of others never to be saved? Certainly not an objective seeker of truth.

Who would conclude if Christ died for the church, those already called out, Christ did not also die for those to be saved and those never to be saved? Certainly not an objective seeker of truth.

Who would say God declared those born anew to be righteous, rather than referring to God making individuals righteous with the washing of regeneration.

Was "all sin punished" or did Christ's substitutionary sacrifice purchase the right to forgive and forget the sins of anyone God transfers into Christ's spiritual body?

1 John 2:2 says Christ became the means of salvation for all of humanity.

2 Peter 2:1 says Christ bought those to be saved and those never to be saved with His blood.[/QUOTE]

Romans 5:19 says by the obedience of Christ, the many will be made righteous, rather than declared righreous.

 

[Marooncat79]

We made it to post 31 and then got side tracked

 

[Marooncat79]

Back to the topic of PSA

 

[Arthur King]

This is not so, and is just a random stone that you have picked up to throw in the absence of anything substantial to say.. Through the resurrection we understand that Christ was who He said He was (Romans 1:4) and that God has accepted the propitiation wrought by Him so that He can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

You just proved my point. On penal substitution, the resurrection is just a proof of the efficacy of the death. But you have not mentioned any saving power of the resurrection itself. Thank you!

 

[Arthur King]

If the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus is the central answer to the human problem, why did He have to spend 33 years on earth, and why did He have to die such a terrible death? More specifically, why did He refuse the wine mixed with myrrh (Mark 15:23)? He could have popped down to earth for the weekend, died instantly from cardiac arrest and been raised. Why would that have been a problem?

I will use the payment analogy frequently used in the New Testament. The life and death of Jesus is the payment made, and the resurrection is the payment applied. If I owe you $10,000 to fix your car, I then have to save up the money (the life of Jesus), I have to pay you the money (the death of Jesus), and then you have to apply the money to actually repair your car (the resurrection of Jesus).

The life of Jesus in that in which he recapitulates the story of Israel and the life of humanity, obeying where we have disobeyed and succeeding where we have failed. This is necessary to make sufficient payment on our behalf.

But it all leads up to you actually fixing your car (the resurrection) as the central solution to your broken car.

 

[JonC]

@JonC . Re post 20. Christ's death and shed blood is what provided the actual means for our salvation. The propitiation for us. I don't want to get into the role of faith, or of things required on our part, here, but at the most basic level it seems God required this.
(I'm sorry but I can't highlight then quote from this device.)

Paul based our ability to know we can rely on Christ for our salvation on the resurrection. He regarded it as proof of the claims of Christ. But if you are asking what actually atones for sin it was not the resurrection. These things cannot be reduced beyond a certain point but you can't explain everything every time you respond. When I was a kid it was popular to say to catholics that their portrayal of crucifixes "Left Jesus on the cross". I assure you that is not what MacArthur or Owen do and I doubt it's what the RC's were doing. With the concept of our union with Christ the resurrection means we can live a new life in God's kingdom. When someone is baptized you will hear the phrase "raised to walk in newness of life".

But if someone is coming up with a doctrine that bases Christianity on an unjust execution that would have been better for us had it not happened and then your faith is a trust in the resurrection I think that's an error.

You still have not answered my question (you just stated that Christ had to die).

Christians die physically. Why, in your opinion, did Jesus have to physically die to accomplish salvation?

In other words, why couldn't Jesus have suffered the punishment instead of us (whatever that would have entailed) and stopped just short of dying (since we will physically die)? Why was His physical death important?


Someone DID come up with a doctrine that bases Christianity on an unjust execution. That Someone is God. It is a doctrine that all Christians shared for the majority of history (and most Christians believe today). It is the reason Christ came - to unjustly suffer what we justly earn.

 

[JonC]

On the contrary, the reason why so many hate the doctrine of Penal Substitution is that it exalts Christ and reduces man to helplessness. This is abominable to pride and self-sufficiency.

No, this is not true. And you have no right (or ability,) to declare the reason others believe what you do not.

Traditional Christianity holds that men are helpless in salvation. That is a major point. Christ did what we could not. But it is the implications of Traditional Christianity that go deeper than Penal Substitution could ever go (traditional Christianiy does not view our redemption as shallow as Penal Substitution.

Penal Substitution does not exhaust Christ but instead exhausts man and man's sin as the controlling factor in God's redemptive plan. Man tenders God powerless to forgive, binds God in such a way that He must find a loophole in His own moral system in order to redeem man. His solution is divine ignorance - take man's sins from them and pretend that He Himself committed those sins so He can punish our sins laid on Himself and pretend justice is served.

A problem with Penal Substitution is that it requires God to be willfully ignorant and transgress His own law, His own standard of righteousness. It is simply a false doctrine.

 

[AustinC]

The problem is that the penal substitution narrative describes the death of Jesus as salvific in and of itself without the resurrection. Jesus rising from the dead is not necessary for salvation on the penal substitution narrative. That is a serious problem.

There is no problem with this if you hold the fact that God saves His elect and gives them the gift of faith upon the moment when He makes them alive (Ephesians 2:1-10).
I see the problem for those who think that man, with his free will, must be the cause of moving God to save them.
Jesus death is absolutely salvific for those whom God the Father has given to the Son to save. The shed blood is particular to those whom Jesus chose to redeem and adopt from before the foundation of the world.

So what you display is a clear rejection of God's causal work in salvation. The problem is not penal substitutionary atonement. The problem is your reliance on man to save himself via human willpower.

Others here have provided overwhelming biblical evidence for Christ as our substitutionary atoner for our sins. Vast scripture reference makes this no "philosophy" but instead "orthodox" theology.

Contrary to this, you and your doppelganger have provided empty chatter with vague philosophy and zero biblical support for a nothing burger of an opinion.

Carry on as I will sign out now.

 

[Arthur King]

There is no problem with this if you hold the fact that God saves His elect and gives them the gift of faith upon the moment when He makes them alive (Ephesians 2:1-10).
I see the problem for those who think that man, with his free will, must be the cause of moving God to save them.
Jesus death is absolutely salvific for those whom God the Father has given to the Son to save. The shed blood is particular to those whom Jesus chose to redeem and adopt from before the foundation of the world.

So what you display is a clear rejection of God's causal work in salvation. The problem is not penal substitutionary atonement. The problem is your reliance on man to save himself via human willpower.

Others here have provided overwhelming biblical evidence for Christ as our substitutionary atoner for our sins. Vast scripture reference makes this no "philosophy" but instead "orthodox" theology.

Contrary to this, you and your doppelganger have provided empty chatter with vague philosophy and zero biblical support for a nothing burger of an opinion.

Carry on as I will sign out now.

You are bringing up completely different topics, namely the extent of the atonement (limited vs unlimited atonement) and whether or not we have free will. Those are not the topics of this thread.

This thread is about the mechanism of atonement, that is, HOW the death and resurrection of Jesus reconciles sinners to God.