Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

Enoch111 said:

Thanks for those posts Brakelite.

Ellen G. White had the right apprehension and comprehension about the Penal Substitution of Christ. Regardless of any other beliefs she might have had. We must give credit where credit is due.

And since all Bible-believing Christians have held to this truth, those who reject it essentially reject Christ and His finished work of redemption. They basically unbelievers.

Click to expand...

This unbiblical "truth" was only invented about 400 years ago.

John Caldwell said:

I agree.

I think that most who accept Penal Substitution Theory do not rely on Scripture itself but rather the narrative the Theory provides. Given the presuppositions provided the conclusions will follow (to include, IMHO, a logical necessity for a Calvinistic soteriology). The problem is that the presuppositions (things we are touching on now) are foreign to Scripture. Without these things the Theory falls apart.

Click to expand...

What presuppositions do you think go into the Substitutionary Atonement?

Enoch111 said:

It just goes to show how you have been blinded by your own false beliefs. You have absolutely no clue about this matter.

Click to expand...

I have a lot more clue than you.
You seem unable or just unwilling, to answer the points I make.

Here are points I made in post #13 that you have ignored:
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God – but Jesus is not eternally separated from God.
2. God would be legally punishing an innocent person for the sins of another.
3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.
4. There is no need for God’s mercy since the debt has been paid. Mercy implies reduction or “letting off” of some or all the debt of punishment.
Moreover the whole theory introduced conflict into the Godhead The whole idea is grotesque.

Also you still cannot explain how penal atonement and forgiveness can co-exist since they are the antithesis of each other.
(Post #25)In the parable of the unforgiving servant
That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount. Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt. At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full. Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan. (Mt 18:23-27)

Who paid the servants debt?
Answer - no-one. The king forgave the debt.
If someone had paid it the servant would not still have owed it.

Penal substitution means the debt is paid not forgiven.
If a debt is forgiven then it is not paid. That is what forgiveness means.

Enoch111 said:

Thanks for those posts Brakelite.

Ellen G. White had the right apprehension and comprehension about the Penal Substitution of Christ. Regardless of any other beliefs she might have had. We must give credit where credit is due.

And since all Bible-believing Christians have held to this truth, those who reject it essentially reject Christ and His finished work of redemption. They basically unbelievers.

Click to expand...

Who do you accuse of rejecting it?

Mungo said:

Here are points I made in post #13 that you have ignored:
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God – but Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

Click to expand...

The wages of sin is death. No where is scripture is there any concept of separation outside of death. Jesus died...that was the debt paid. He was also separated through death from His Father, and experienced fully what sinners will experience...The only difference of course being Christ was innocent there for gave the Father the right to raise Him from the dead. Just as we are in Christ and have that same right granted us.

Mungo said:

2. God would be legally punishing an innocent person for the sins of another.

Click to expand...

Not quite. The Father and Son agreed together before creation concerning the plan of salvation, thus it was the Son who gave His life a ransom for many...The Father did not kill His Son.

Mungo said:

3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.

Click to expand...

That's just nonsense. If you steal your neighbors car then return it a year later does that mean there is nothing to forgive? If you confess to your neighbour your crime, and he forgives you, does that mean then you can keep the car? Sorry, but dimple justice demands retribution, regardless of forgiveness. Add for your often quoted parable of the unforgiving servant, there is a lot more to the story that Jesus leaves out because the point he was making would become to complicated. Just consider the fact that the books in heaven still record the details of your whole life and are not wiped clean the moment you accept Christ. Learn the lesson from the OT. The blood of the sacrifice remained on the horns of the altar until the day of atonement, then they were cleansed (Levit 16). The sins of Israel was in that blood,, recorded in type until the consummation.

Mungo said:

4. There is no need for God’s mercy since the debt has been paid. Mercy implies reduction or “letting off” of some or all the debt of punishment.

Click to expand...

Again, nonsense. If a loving judge sees his own son in the dock, being charged with speeding, how will it go down if he says,I forgive you, and just let him go? Whatever fine was appropriate for the offense, would still have to be paid. The judge would demonstrate his forgiveness by paying it himself.

marks said:

Are you talking about Federalism?

Click to expand...

Only in that Christ is the "second Adam".

Enoch111 said:

Anyone who calls the finished work of Christ "a theory". That would be rejecting (1) the Bible, (2) the true Gospel, (3) the Substitutionary Atoning Work of Christ. There is no middle ground here since we either believe God or we do not. Faith is essential for salvation, and that faith is in Christ and His finished work of redemption.

Click to expand...

The issue is you (and @Steve Owen and @David Taylor) are the only ones who attribute the finished work of Christ to a theory.

Everyone else here seems to see it as the work of God in redemption as proclaimed in Scripture.

marks said:

Wouldn't "succeeding where Adam failed" mean eating the tree of life and living forever? Without death?

Much love!

Click to expand...

In a way, yes. Which is the point (Christ IS this Life). His condemnation was evil and He was vindicated, becoming the Firstborn of many brethren.

John Caldwell said:

The issue is you (and @Steve Owen and @David Taylor) are the only ones who attribute the finished work of Christ to a theory.

Everyone else here seems to see it as the work of God in redemption as proclaimed in Scripture.

Click to expand...

More dishonesty. Par for the course with John.

David Taylor said:

More dishonesty. Par for the course with John.

Click to expand...

I agree that it should be noted Brakelite seems to be in agreement with Enoch as well. Not sure where Charismatic Lady is, but then I'm sort of viewing this thread from afar for the most part... for now.

Not sure I would necessarily chalk it up to deliberate dishonesty, however. John strikes me a pretty decent guy.

Blessings in Christ.

John Caldwell said:

Only in that Christ is the "second Adam".

Click to expand...

OK, John, thank you for responding, but honestly, I don't have clue where you're coming from with this. I still don't understand what you believe about why Jesus had to die.

?

Much love!

marks said:

OK, John, thank you for responding, but honestly, I don't have clue where you're coming from with this. I still don't understand what you believe about why Jesus had to die.

Click to expand...

I've been waiting for that answer for days.

marks said:

OK, John, thank you for responding, but honestly, I don't have clue where you're coming from with this. I still don't understand what you believe about why Jesus had to die.

?

Much love!

Click to expand...

It took me awhile as well.

When I realized my view (Penal Substitution Theory) was not actually in the Bible I struggled to read Scripture apart from it.

I knew that thought history Christians believed Christ had to die while rejecting the Theory. But shaking off the tradition I grew up with was difficult.

The Early Church did not teach Penal Substitution Theory. Justin Martyr, for exame, taught an early form of recipitulation. His writings are available. Why do you think Justin Martyr thought Christ had to die?

For a more recent example consider C. S. Lewis. He was adament of the necessity of Christ's death while strongly rejecting Penal Substitution Theory. Why did Lewis believe it was necessary for Christ to die?

Those were the questions I asked myself. I studied Scripture apart from Penal Substitution Theory and then read their words anew. I suggest that for anyone having difficulty understanding the necessity of Christ's death apart from Penal Substitution Theory.

John Caldwell said:

It took me awhile as well.

When I realized my view (Penal Substitution Theory) was not actually in the Bible I struggled to read Scripture apart from it.

I knew that thought history Christians believed Christ had to die while rejecting the Theory. But shaking off the tradition I grew up with was difficult.

The Early Church did not teach Penal Substitution Theory. Justin Martyr, for exame, taught an early form of recipitulation. His writings are available. Why do you think Justin Martyr thought Christ had to die?

For a more recent example consider C. S. Lewis. He was adament of the necessity of Christ's death while strongly rejecting Penal Substitution Theory. Why did Lewis believe it was necessary for Christ to die?

Those were the questions I asked myself. I studied Scripture apart from Penal Substitution Theory and then read their words anew. I suggest that for anyone having difficulty understanding the necessity of Christ's death apart from Penal Substitution Theory.

Click to expand...

I don't know why Justin Martyr thought Jesus had to die, and I don't know why you think He had to die.

Oh well.

Enoch111 said:

Anyone who calls the finished work of Christ "a theory". That would be rejecting (1) the Bible, (2) the true Gospel, (3) the Substitutionary Atoning Work of Christ. There is no middle ground here since we either believe God or we do not. Faith is essential for salvation, and that faith is in Christ and His finished work of redemption.

Click to expand...

No one doesn't believe that.

John Caldwell said:

The issue is you (and @Steve Owen and @David Taylor) are the only ones who attribute the finished work of Christ to a theory.

Everyone else here seems to see it as the work of God in redemption as proclaimed in Scripture.

Click to expand...

You really are the king of cheap jibes. No, as a matter of fact it is you who are following a theory, and one which you are struggling to articulate, hence your recourse to the aforementioned jibes. If your theory was really Biblical you would be able to show some Scripture for it. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is firmly based of Scripture. So yar, boo and sucks to you!

John Caldwell said:

The Early Church did not teach Penal Substitution Theory. Justin Martyr, for exame, taught an early form of recipitulation. His writings are available. Why do you think Justin Martyr thought Christ had to die?

Click to expand...

Justin Martyr quite clearly articulated the Doctrine of Penal Substitution in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
But if you want to start a debate on it, please start another thread; this one is growing to Biblical proportions.

marks said:

I don't know why Justin Martyr thought Jesus had to die, and I don't know why you think He had do die.

Oh well.

Click to expand...

It is difficult (but simple)..

Mankind was under the curse, in bondage to sin and death. Christ had to suffer under the curse, become a curse for the "human family". The Father vindicated Christ and He became a life giving Spirit.

If you can read Scripture without adding Penal Substitution Theory (as if what is actually stated in the text was complete and accurate) and that mane sence then you have your answer.

Once I acknowledged that Penal Substitution Theory was not actually in the Bible it took some effort to realize Scripture did not need the theory to make sense.