How does the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement necessitate the Cross?

[FollowHim]

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:5-10

Jesus being a guilt offering is not as a substitution for our death. Jesus did not take our punishment, he took punishment because of our transgressions and iniquities, because without forgiveness for these transgressions we could not receive forgiveness.

The step of our forgiveness is in accepting we killed Jesus, so we inherit the forgiveness. If we deny we killed Jesus we cannot be forgiven. So Jesus took on a defined physical punishment, which represented the sin of the world if taken by the world, but was not infinite, or cleansing of the whole world, it only forgave those who killed Him or caused His death.

This is an important spiritual divide. If Jesus died for all sin in the world, and resolved it all irrespective of faith or action, then sin is not an issue in the eternal realities. But this heresy removes the point of the cross and faith, its cleansing in our hearts and the divide between the Kingdom of heaven and that of this world. The power of the cross disappears once it is not personal, and remote, a court room balancing of the books without it being our death and our blood being shed. Once you see us guilty and the Lord taking it all, it begins to work in our hearts. God bless you

 

[Candidus]

This is the gospel:
Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

What does it mean that He died for our sins?

Maybe if you could tell me your answer to this question, we can proceed with a clear understanding of what you believe is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You first!

 

[Stumpmaster]

Several times I have seen advocates of the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) comment that they do not understand how other theories necessitate the cross.

Hi John. Is there a simple way to explain Christ's death on the cross without resorting to theories of any sort? I like to think so which is why I simply state it was God's Plan. This has amounted to "strong meat" for those who have never grasped the truth that the purpose of Christ's Incarnation was to voluntarily die in atonement for our sins.

Joh 10:17-18 Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. (18) No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

 

[Candidus]

This is true only in the sense that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. But Jesus did NOT die at the hand of sinful mankind as such.

However this heresy of John Caldwell in the OP would have us believe that only wicked men were involved with the crucifixion of Christ. Here is what he said: "Christ suffered and died at the hands of the world (at the hands of wicked men), not at the hands of God." And that is a blatant lie.

It is God who sent His Son into this world to become the Lamb of God who would take away our sins, and Christ offered Himself TO GOD as a whole Burnt Offering. No man could have touched Christ unless it was God's express and predetermined plan to see His Son suffer and die for the sins of the whole world.

Care to show the Bible verses that say this?

 

[Candidus]

Hi John. Is there a simple way to explain Christ's death on the cross without resorting to theories of any sort? I like to think so which is why I simply state it was God's Plan. This has amounted to "strong meat" for those who have never grasped the truth that the purpose of Christ's Incarnation was to voluntarily die in atonement for our sins.

Joh 10:17-18 Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. (18) No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Unfortunately, quoting John 10:17-18 to an unbeliever would tell them nothing of Atonement, or the need for Atonement.

You asked if there was a way to explain the Death of Christ on the cross without resorting to theories of any sort. I don't believe that it is possible, and I do not believe that a theory of an approach to Atonement is being unbiblical in any way, for nearly the entire Bible from cover to cover discusses God's approach (or call it Theory) if you wish.

The via media I see is that we get into trouble theologically when we add or "develop" our theory beyond what is actually said in Scripture. So much so, that people hold their "theory" more dear than Scripture itself, and add to the Gospel in a way in which if you do not accept their theory, you are doomed to an Eternal Hell! What they preach is not the Gospel; it is Doctrinal Regeneration; it is no different than adding Circumcision as a requirement to be saved.

The other issue is when people use that theory, and not Scripture, to determine other doctrines in the Bible by following the philosophy of that theory. This is the real danger of elevating a theory above Scripture itself.

The Gospel never demands any ascent to any specific view of atonement. It is faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Salvation is by grace through faith; never of faith plus (add your Theory here.)

Understanding a full-rounded and complete theory of Atonement is nowhere ever asserted in Scripture as an essential to getting saved. Simply stated, it is just not the Gospel!

But what is "essential" to believe?

Any Theory of the Atonement must consider a few things:

1). The death of Christ was necessary to reconcile us to God.
2). It was not an accident or merely because of a collision with hateful people.
3). Jesus lived a sinless life and offered Himself up voluntarily as our Sacrifice.
4). Jesus said that His voluntary death was not for Himself, but for others.
5). Jesus said that faith in Him and His work on the Cross reconciles men to God.

In any adequate theory of the purpose of the Death of Christ, these things must find a place and explanation. I do not claim that the list is complete, but a suggestion that any Theory of Atonement, if it has any hope of being a complete "Theory," needs to address these issues.

Considering theories in history, many meet this standard, and many do not. There are many theories that suggest the following:

1) We are dead in our sins, we are separated from a Holy God and as a result, we are doomed to an Eternal Hell and separation from Him. We cannot "undo" these sins (crimes) against God and can do nothing to save ourselves.

2). Only Jesus Christ and His Death on the Cross can reconcile us to God. Jesus lived a sinless life, and offered Himself up as a Sacrifice for our sins that we might be redeemed.

Yet, in the end, the only "theory" or understanding that someone needs to be saved, are these two points. There are several "Theories" that teach this very thing. No one is "saved" by intellectual ascent to a Theory. Even after salvation, many say that they believe a certain "Theory" and cannot explain it. They are dogmatic that it is "Biblical," so much so, that they determine the direction of other doctrines based upon the theoretical and not Scripture.

What Scripture says should determine what doctrine is, not what any theory leads us to believe. Once someone becomes a Believer, they should seek the the Scriptures to understand how God saves us, and not just accept some bias that someone fed us when we were first saved as the "Gospel." Thankfully, the Gospel of the Bible is simple! Once we see that we are sinners and need a Savior from our sins, simple repenting and believing the Gospel is all we need. Through most of Christian history Believers did not have exhaustive and complete "Theories" to work from, and God accepted them just fine! Praise God that you do not have to have a Ph.D. in Theology to get saved!

 

[Enoch111]

Care to show the Bible verses that say this?

THE LAMB OF GOD SLAIN FROM BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (1 Peter 1:18-20)

GOD WOULD PROVIDE HIMSELF A LAMB
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a Lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. (Gen 22:8) [Note: in the case of Abraham, God provided a ram, not a lamb. Therefore this was prophetic about Christ]
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world... Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! (John 1:29,35,36)

CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF TO GOD IN PLACE OF ALL SACRIFICES
HEBREWS 10
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5 Wherefore when He [Christ] cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8 Above when He said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;9 Then said He, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

GOD THE FATHER PREDETERMINED THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:22,23)

In view of all these Scriptures, those wicked men were merely instruments in the hands of God to accomplish what God had predetermined, and what Christ had resolved to do even BEFORE He came into this world. In fact Jesus plainly told Peter in Gethsemane that had He chosen to be rescued, He could have called down twelve legions of angels (Mt 26:53). Since there were 6,000 soldiers per Roman legion, Christ could have called down 72,000 angels to stop those wicked men from taking him captive.

In view of all this it is pure and simple HERESY to claim that God was not involved with the crucifixion of Christ.

 

[John Caldwell]

This is true only in the sense that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. But Jesus did NOT die at the hand of sinful mankind as such.

However this heresy of John Caldwell in the OP would have us believe that only wicked men were involved with the crucifixion of Christ. Here is what he said: "Christ suffered and died at the hands of the world (at the hands of wicked men), not at the hands of God." And that is a blatant lie.

It is God who sent His Son into this world to become the Lamb of God who would take away our sins, and Christ offered Himself TO GOD as a whole Burnt Offering. No man could have touched Christ unless it was God's express and predetermined plan to see His Son suffer and die for the sins of the whole world.

This is not a true statement. I apologize as it is most likely due to a lack of clarity in my own responses.

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

According to the Scriptures Christ died at the hands of wicked men (the Jewish leaders were also guilty as they handed Christ over). While Scripture is clear Christ did not die at the hand of God, Scripture is also clear that Christ lay down His life on His own accord and that thus was the predetermined plan of God.

So there is a bit more to what I said than your post allows. I apologize that in our discussions I was not clear enough. I must have taken for granted my acceptance of Scripture (that Christ died at the hands of the world, not God - but willingly and by the "predetermined plan of God") was implied in my response.

I am sorry for any confusion.

 

[Angelina]

John's post: That is what I said in my post above. I do not believe that God needed to pay Satan but rather that Satan is the accuser of the brethren before God, questioning God about others who break his law...his commands

@John Caldwell would you please clarify what you were meaning in regards to PSA? I am thinking that perhaps you were meaning that need for all humans to have to die [in general] but You have not stated anything clearly...

 

[John Caldwell]

@John Caldwell would you please clarify what you were meaning in regards to PSA? I am thinking that perhaps you were meaning that need for all humans to have to die [in general] but You have not stated anything clearly...

I’m not sure which part you mean about PSA. But what I believe is that the wages of sin is death and it is appointed all men once to die and then the Judgment.

So death, because of Adam’s transgression, is a part of what it is to be human. This is why Christ had to die in order to deliver us from the bondage of sin and death.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Candidus]

THE LAMB OF GOD SLAIN FROM BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (1 Peter 1:18-20)

GOD WOULD PROVIDE HIMSELF A LAMB
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a Lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. (Gen 22:8) [Note: in the case of Abraham, God provided a ram, not a lamb. Therefore this was prophetic about Christ]
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world... Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! (John 1:29,35,36)

CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF TO GOD IN PLACE OF ALL SACRIFICES
HEBREWS 10
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5 Wherefore when He [Christ] cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8 Above when He said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;9 Then said He, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

GOD THE FATHER PREDETERMINED THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:22,23)

In view of all these Scriptures, those wicked men were merely instruments in the hands of God to accomplish what God had predetermined, and what Christ had resolved to do even BEFORE His came into this world. In fact Jesus plainly told Peter in Gethsemane that had He chosen to be rescued, He could have called down twelve legions of angels (Mt 26:53). Since there were 6,000 soldiers per Roman legion, Christ could have called down 72,000 angels to stop those wicked men from taking him captive.

In view of all this it is pure and simple HERESY to claim that God was not involved with the crucifixion of Christ.

Yet, not one passage you quoted says that God was the instrument of the Crucifixion! To say so is HERESY!

John Caldwell is right! Allow me to bolden when you did not emphasize.... "being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:22,23). God does not have "wicked hands" and did not crucify and slay Jesus Christ. Foreknowledge is not causation; it is merely knowledge. The will of God to "determine" the Atonement by the hands of the wicked does not make God active in the injustice. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.

 

[John Caldwell]

It seems to me that you have gutted out the essential doctrine that will bring salvation to the sinner.

This is the gospel:

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

What does it mean that He died for our sins?

Maybe if you could tell me your answer to this question, we can proceed with a clear understanding of what you believe is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I understand why it would seem that way to you. For most of my life I held to PSA and it would have seemed that way to me as well because it is a righteousness not dependent on the law but on a second creation or “rebirth” of man.

Yes, I absolutely agree with your statement and it is a good summary. Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures. Since we both believe this as true, does it not stand to reason that we should depend on Scriptures (on what is in the biblical text)? If so, how can PSA be true as there are no passages stating that God punished Christ instead of punishing us, passages that do state God is just to forgive upon repentance, etc.?

I believe what it means that Jesus died for our sins is that Jesus died “to free us from the bondage of sin and death”. Through Adam sin entered the world and death through sin. Death reigned over mankind. Judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation but the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. Christ bore our sins in His flesh. He shared in our iniquity.

 

[Angelina]

I’m not sure which part you mean about PSA. But what I believe is that the wages of sin is death and it is appointed all men once to die and then the Judgment.

So death, because of Adam’s transgression, is a part of what it is to be human. This is why Christ had to die in order to deliver us from the bondage of sin and death.

Does that answer your question?

Not really. It's what we all believe...n/m

 

[John Caldwell]

Not really. It's what we all believe...n/m

Then I have to say I do not understand your question. I am sorry, but I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. I do believe all human beings have to die (physically, in the flesh).

I understand PSA and can articulate PSA and defend PSA more than I can my own position. I preached and taught in a Baptist church that taught PSA. I graduated from a Baptist university and continued to seminary. I studied theology from a PSA point of view and earned my Masters degree in theology. I do not say this to brag, just the opposite.

At some point a few years ago I realized it was built on sand. This, I believe, was a God-given conviction. The reason is I had preached a sermon very much dependent on the theory. The next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had preached a theory rather than Scripture and in that one moment I reevaluated my position against Scripture.

That was only a few years ago. I am still working on articulating my position now. I find that I am appreciating the works of people I had previously rejected. This is why the topic of Reconciliation is so important to me. I am still working on articulating my view.

So if you want to know what I believe you will have to bear with me a bit as I stumble along - and I apologize for that. If you want a more mature explanation of Christus Victor you are probably better off asking one of the more mature members here.

 

[Candidus]

Then I have to say I do not understand your question. I am sorry, but I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. I do believe all human beings have to die (physically, in the flesh).

I understand PSA and can articulate PSA and defend PSA more than I can my own position. I preached and taught in a Baptist church that taught PSA. I graduated from a Baptist university and continued to seminary. I studied theology from a PSA point of view and earned my Masters degree in theology. I do not say this to brag, just the opposite.

At some point a few years ago I realized it was built on sand. This, I believe, was a God-given conviction. The reason is I had preached a sermon very much dependent on the theory. The next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had preached a theory rather than Scripture and in that one moment I reevaluated my position against Scripture.

That was only a few years ago. I am still working on articulating my position now. I find that I am appreciating the works of people I had previously rejected. This is why the topic of Reconciliation is so important to me. I am still working on articulating my view.

So if you want to know what I believe you will have to bear with me a bit as I stumble along - and I apologize for that. If you want a more mature explanation of Christus Victor you are probably better off asking one of the more mature members here.

When I got "saved" the first thing that was piled onto the Rock of my salvation was well-meaning theological explanations. I too was taught PSA. What read in books was PSA. What I heard in preaching in Church and radio... was PSA. My experience is not unlike the majority of those in Western culture. When you hear this consistent message and hear it claimed to be a Biblical message, it easily becomes "Biblical" in your mind! Even works of Theology try to proof-text it, yet the passages they use are specious at best. But at first glance it is impressive! Look at all those supporting verses! Christians are as familiar with PSA as they are with John 3:16... It's BIBLE! Everyone they know believes it! I understand that the vast majority of Christians have been taught and adhere to the Penal Theory of the atonement (although most hold to it inconsistently), because that is all they have ever heard. Challenge it, question it, or even look in the Bible to see if it really teaches it... is tantamount to HERESY!

My journey started when I was inexact and self-contradictory on the issue of sin. Someone loaned me a book on the subject that started its foundation on Theology, and how it "leads" people to unbiblical conclusions. I buzzed over the two brief chapters quite dismissively, since as a young Christian I believed the Bible! Not all that Theology "junk"! The author was critical of many of the points of PSA, but I passed it by because I was reading it to understand the issue of "sin," not atonement!

About a year later a discussion came up in Church about sin, and I remembered a little of what I read. I then ordered the book so I could read it again with no time limits. This time I rushed through the first two chapters again since they did not apply.., so I thought. As I read his argument, it did not make sense. I stopped and set myself to actually "study" the first two chapters... it rocked my world! I finally "saw" that I was leading all I read with presuppositions I believed were in the Bible, but were not! At first it crushed me, since I actually thought that I knew a lot about the Bible! The light came on and I saw that I was not being honest with myself; I was being led by the nose by a theology and not exclusively by Scripture! It caused me to to do what is discouraged by many... question everything! Test it! See if it true!

Am I "anti-theology"? By no means! I love theology! Actually, I wish that God made me more of a Biblicist than a Theological thinker! For myself, I try to mindful to differentiate what is actually Scripture and what is theological "gap-filling." But because of repetition, popularity, and familiarity, of theological assumptions many are trained to not see the difference.

 

[John Caldwell]

When I got "saved" the first thing that was piled onto the Rock of my salvation was well-meaning theological explanations. I too was taught PSA. What read in books was PSA. What I heard in preaching in Church and radio... was PSA. My experience is not unlike the majority of those in Western culture. When you hear this consistent message and hear it claimed to be a Biblical message, it easily becomes "Biblical" in your mind! Even works of Theology try to proof-text it, yet the passages they use are specious at best. But at first glance it is impressive! Look at all those supporting verses! Christians are as familiar with PSA as they are with John 3:16... It's BIBLE! Everyone they know believes it! I understand that the vast majority of Christians have been taught and adhere to the Penal Theory of the atonement (although most hold to it inconsistently), because that is all they have ever heard. Challenge it, question it, or even look in the Bible to see if it really teaches it... is tantamount to HERESY!

My journey started when I was inexact and self-contradictory on the issue of sin. Someone loaned me a book on the subject that started its foundation on Theology, and how it "leads" people to unbiblical conclusions. I buzzed over the two brief chapters quite dismissively, since as a young Christian I believed the Bible! Not all that Theology "junk"! The author was critical of many of the points of PSA, but I passed it by because I was reading it to understand the issue of "sin," not atonement!

About a year later a discussion came up in Church about sin, and I remembered a little of what I read. I then ordered the book so I could read it again with no time limits. This time I rushed through the first two chapters again since they did not apply.., so I thought. As I read his argument, it did not make sense. I stopped and set myself to actually "study" the first two chapters... it rocked my world! I finally "saw" that I was leading all I read with presuppositions I believed were in the Bible, but were not! At first it crushed me, since I actually thought that I knew a lot about the Bible! The light came on and I saw that I was not being honest with myself; I was being led by the nose by a theology and not exclusively by Scripture! It caused me to to do what is discouraged by many... question everything! Test it! See if it true!

Am I "anti-theology"? By no means! I love theology! Actually, I wish that God made me more of a Biblicist than a Theological thinker! For myself, I try to mindful to differentiate what is actually Scripture and what is theological "gap-filling." But because of repetition, popularity, and familiarity, of theological assumptions many are trained to not see the difference.

I absolutely agree.

I have realized the same thing. PSA offers a lot of passages, but at the same time the passages they offer do not actually affirm the Theory. For example, they will offer “the chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him” and say it proves God punished. But that is not really what the verse states. We just get a bunch of verses and the claim that PSA is the obvious meaning of Scripture.

So I started asking myself, what if Scripture actually means what it says? What if it is complete and there is no need to add to it? Does the Bible really make sense without adding a theory? I came to realize that it does.

I purchased a few whiteboards and wrote down PSA on one side with all corresponding verses on another. Then I erased what of PSA was not actually in the Bible. That was an eye opener for me. It is easy now for me to understand why PSA is wrong, and even where it went wrong. It is more difficult to read Scripture (even now) without automatically assuming the philosophy PSA presupposes. I have still have to make a conscious decision not to read that error into Scripture.

I agree with you. PSA is tantamount to heresy because it not only adds to Scripture but it replaces what is actually there. While a Christian can be saved and understand the gospel of Christ while believing PSA (as I did) it is impossible for that person to grasp the meaning of the cross itself as PSA empties it of all meaning and replaces it with a humanistic theory.

The greatest error of PSA is the belief that Scripture is incomplete and "truth" is implied or taught in the Bible rather than living in the text of God's Word itself. Scripture does need study and it can be difficult. But the Atonement itself is on the surface, it is there for all to see. It was not hidden away in the Bible awaiting the Reformation to decode its mysteries by connecting the dots.

That said, I have found it much easier to pick out what is a false doctrine than it is to articulate my own position.

 

[Candidus]

For example, they will offer “the chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him” and say it proves God punished. But that is not really what the verse states. We just get a bunch of verses and the claim that PSA is the obvious meaning of Scripture.

There are two words in Hebrew that we translate the word "chasten." (A). One means reprove, rebuke and punishment. (B). The other means to bind; to discipline, to restrain from doing wrong; correction.

(A). Is used mostly in context of punishment of the wicked. (B). is used in examples or chastening or punishing a child.

In (A), the purpose of punishment is a punitive justice, retribution. But we use the term "Punish a child," we really mean (or really should mean!) "To discipline a child." The action is not retribution, but correction. One term is to retaliate and get even, the other is an act of love to save the person from self-harm.

The fact that I bring this point up is obvious; the word used in Isaiah 53:4-5 is (B). The Bible translations that say "Chasten" are correct. The one's using "punish" I believe are designed with a bias in mind. The translation is not wrong if we look at it in a way in which we say that we "punish" a child for wrongdoing; for correction, but it looks to me to be translated to favor PSA without violating literal translation. They knew that they could depend on people's ignorance and tendency to interpret from their already established bias.

 

[Candidus]

It is easy now for me to understand why PSA is wrong, and even where it went wrong. It is more difficult to read Scripture (even now) without automatically assuming the philosophy PSA presupposes. I have still have to make a conscious decision not to read that error into Scripture.

I am not a fan of Eternal Security and PSA. Both are false doctrines that are not Scriptural, yet at one time I was a "True Believer" in both of them. The first to go for me was Eternal Security, and it literally took years to get to the point where it was no longer living in my head!

I remember expressing to my wife that I did not have an issue with Eternal Security "proof-texts" but for one. "Which verse is that? She asked me... I picked up my Bible and read... "Who shall separate us from the love of God?" "There! it says that we cannot be separated from the salvation of God! She was raised in the Church, I was not. She knew her Bible and immediately said, "Where in that passage does it say "salvation"?

No kidding! My mind was so conditioned to see that verse that way, that even though I can read... my mind automatically converted "love" to "salvation!"

PSA is not alone in making people so conditioned that the "see" certain things that are not really there. Most people would be shocked if they woke up and could disconnect themselves from their biases as they re-read Scripture. So much easier said, than done!

 

[justbyfaith]

(A). One means reprove, rebuke and punishment. (B). The other means to bind; to discipline, to restrain from doing wrong; correction.

The fact that I bring this point up is obvious; the word used in Isaiah 53:4-5 is (B).

It can only be true that the word used in Isaiah 53:4-5 is (A) and not (B).

Because if Jesus took our chastening upon Himself rather than our punishment, we would not be the objects of the Lord's chastening.

Yet Hebrews 12:5-11 is clear that He does indeed chasten His children.

Therefore, I say to you truly, that Isaiah 53:4-5 declares that Jesus took upon Himself the punishment for our sins.

Thanks for bringing up that passage, btw. Because I was having trouble finding verses that did not have loopholes that you could get around if you thought about it hard enough.

Clearly, the passage in question proves PSA in my mind because scripture shows forth that the terminology is not what you thought it was.

 

[justbyfaith]

You first!

How does the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement necessitate the Cross?

 

[Behold]

One thing to keep in mind

physical death was a byproduct of sin, not the penalty of sin

Jesus said it was finished before he physically gave up the ghost (died)

so the atonement he paid was not the sufferings imposed my men

Its the Law that defines a person as a SINNER, and their carnal deeds as SIN.
If you take away the law's dominion, then the Law has no more authority to define you as ANYTHING.

"we are not under the Law,.......we are UNDER GRACE".

Grace now has dominion over the Born again..
Grace does not define you as a sinner, or your carnal behavior as sin.
They are defined as "works of the Flesh".
So, if you or your pastor or your denomination is telling you that you are a saved sinner who will be sinning and repenting and confessing till you die, then go find another pastor and denomination which understands REDEMPTION and the BLOOD Atonement and the GRACE of God.