Why you must understand PSA

[percho]

PSA = The soul that sins it shall die. There would be no eternal life. Yet: The center is, the death of the soul who did not sin, yet gave his life, died, poured his soul out unto death. My God My God why have Thou forsaken me?

Ok just where will eternal life come from? Penal substitution has been made by the soul who did not sin, yet died. The heir of God is dead.

BTW it ain't about just us humans. The scriptures have concluded all under sin and the heir of God just gave his life, died, poured out his soul unto death. How are the works of the devil going to be destroyed? How is he who has the power of the death going to be destroyed, that is the devil?

Why before time began did the God make a promise of hope? Where is eternal life going to come from? ??? Rom. 8:11???

 

[percho]

Rev 1:5 YLT and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born [Life again] out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe [Wash] us from our sins in his blood,
Acts 2:32,33 YLT 'This Jesus did God raise up, of which we are all witnesses; at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father -- he was shedding forth this, which now ye see and hear;
Rom 8:11 YLT and if the Spirit of Him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, He who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through His Spirit dwelling in you.

Titus 3:5 YLT (not by works that are in righteousness that we did [like believing in something IMHO] but according to His kindness,) He did save us, through a bathing [washing] of regeneration, and a renewing of the Holy Spirit, ['Father, to Thy hands I commit my spirit] < Luke 23:46 & Acts 2:32,33 'This Jesus did God raise up, also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father
Titus 3:6 YLT which He poured upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, < also Acts 2:33

That he is just and the justifier of [John 6:29 YLT Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that ye may believe in him whom He did send.'] the believing ones.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

This is a false analogy. The sinner is under the wrath of God (eg. Psalms 7:11), and because of his sinful nature is unable to do anything to please Him (Romans 8:8) . I need a whole lot more than having an engine fixed. The Recapitulation theory has much to commend it, but in the absence of Penal Substitution, it falls short. Irenaeus understood that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

In that case you have no right to say that were men to choose an atonement they would pick Penal Substitution. You too have no right or ability to declare the reason others believe what you do not.

 

[Arthur King]

This is a false analogy. The sinner is under the wrath of God (eg. Psalms 7:11), and because of his sinful nature is unable to do anything to please Him (Romans 8:8) . I need a whole lot more than having an engine fixed. The Recapitulation theory has much to commend it, but in the absence of Penal Substitution, it falls short. Irenaeus understood that.

Take it up with Jesus and the New Testament, because the payment analogy is probably the most prominent analogy that both of them use to describe the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection. The word "redemption" literally means payment of a price to free from bondage. Agree that recapitulation is necessary but not sufficient. I was only referencing it to answer your question of why Jesus lived for 33 years.

Regarding wrath and the propitiation of wrath: if I crash into your car and do $1,000 of damage, you will be angry. Your anger threatens me with punishment unless I do certain things, namely pay you restitution and apologize. So when I tell you my insurance company will pay you $5,000 and tell you that I will drive better in the future, your anger will be gone. You will be propitiated. There is no longer a purpose for the wrath because resources were provided to fix what was broken.

But penalty substitution demands a different definition and different mechanism regarding propitiation. Penalty substitution defines propitiation as “wrath exhaustion via displacement.” This means that the threatened wrath must be exhausted either on the offender or a substitute standing in for the offender. On penalty substitution, it is not enough for the anger to simply be averted. The anger must be vented. It must be carried out, or there is an injustice. Punishment must be carried out for punishment’s sake. It would be as if I came to you with $5,000 to fix your car and you said, “Nope, call up the insurance company and have them instead provide me with a car of equal worth to my own, that I can do $1,000 worth of damage to. I need to exhaust my retributive anger, and justice will not be satisfied until my anger is exhausted. Only then will I be propitiated.” This is ridiculous, and it would do nothing to fix the car, but it is exactly how the penalty substitution advocate understands the cross. God has wrath against humanity because our sin has damaged His infinite worth, and His wrath must be satisfied either on us or on Jesus to an infinite degree. Jesus stands in place of humanity and suffers his wrath, exhausting it via displacement, thus achieving propitiation. But this mechanism of wrath displacement is nowhere in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

In that case you have no right to say that were men to choose an atonement they would pick Penal Substitution. You too have no right or ability to declare the reason others believe what you do not.

Sure I do. I'm not saying the reason people believe the theory but making observations as I held the theory most of my life.

I did not believe Penal Substitution because it made new demands of the believer, or because it magnified man. I believe it because it because that was how I grew up.

 

[DaveXR650]

Re post 37. @JonC . Of course the execution has to be unjust or Jesus could not been the acceptable sacrifice. Just as we also know that if Jesus did not rise from the dead we are still in our sins and we were wrong on all this. That includes you, me, Paul, and even Jesus if I can say that reverently. I just maintain that there was a penal substitution at the very core of the atonement.

I can read Martyn Lloyd-Jones, or Horatius Bonar and they cover all the various aspects of the death of Christ that you mention and what it accomplished at so many levels. And they also saw at the core - penal substitutionary atonement.

 

[JonC]

Re post 37. @JonC . Of course the execution has to be unjust or Jesus could not been the acceptable sacrifice. Just as we also know that if Jesus did not rise from the dead we are still in our sins and we were wrong on all this. That includes you, me, Paul, and even Jesus if I can say that reverently. I just maintain that there was a penal substitution at the very core of the atonement.

I can read Martyn Lloyd-Jones, or Horatius Bonar and they cover all the various aspects of the death of Christ that you mention and what it accomplished at so many levels. And they also saw at the core - penal substitutionary atonement.

Why do you believe that Jesus' execution had to be unjust in order for Him to be an acceptable sacrifice?

Christians were unjustly executed. Were they acceptable sacrifices?

Men have been unjustly executed throughout history. Were they acceptable sacrifices?

No....the reason Jesus' death was unjust is that He suffered and died for our sins (not His own). The execution itself was unjust, but that was not uncommon.

There were many aspects. Christ was handed over by Israel, Christ was executed by the ruler of the Jewish world (the Roman Empire), Christ submitted Himself to die under the curse (under the powers of sin and death, the powers of this age), and Christ was vindicated in the Resurrection having won victory on our behalf over the powers of darkness. And this was in accordance with God's predetermined plan.

 

[JonC]

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.

Good point (and one that is often overlooked in these discussions).

We have to work out first things first (here the mechanism of Atonement). If we get that right then often issues down the line are automatically resolved (in this case, obsolete).