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

[John Caldwell]

Repenting does not change the fact of sins that have been committed in the past; and justice requires that those sins be punished.

How does God show mercy to forgive those sins while continuing to be just according to your theory?

We die to our sins.

God tells us it is an abomination to condemn the righteous and to acquit the guilty. So we know PSA is a false doctrine. But there remains one solution - one that is a righteous apart from the law. Make the guilty innocent. How? One must be born again.

There is no condemnation on Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

We die to our sins.

God tells us it is an abomination to condemn the righteous and to acquit the guilty. So we know PSA is a false doctrine. But there remains one solution - one that is a righteous apart from the law. Make the guilty innocent. How? One must be born again.

There is no condemnation on Christ.

So, one is forgiven over turning over a new leaf?

The blood of Jesus doesn't bring forgiveness; but a person is forgiven because they are innocent of crimes that they previously committed?

How are they forgiven? How is justice satisfied over the sins that they committed before they were born again?

If a murderer is being tried, he is not going to be acquitted just because he says he won't do it again.

There has to be a payment for what he did...retributive justice.

You are saying that a person can be acquitted just because he won't commit the same crime again.

Say that to the family of the victim in the case of a murder.

They require justice...even due penalty for the crime.

Should the officer who killed George Floyd be acquitted of his crime if he simply says, "I won't do it again"?

Or, is he justified because he is robed in the righteousness of a police uniform?

I don't think so...

 

[John Caldwell]

So, one is forgiven over turning over a new leaf?

The blood of Jesus doesn't bring forgiveness; but a person is forgiven because they are innocent of crimes that they previously committed?

How are they forgiven? How is justice satisfied over the sins that they committed before they were born again?

If a murderer is being tried, he is not going to be acquitted just because he says he won't do it again.

There has to be a payment for what he did...retributive justice.

You are saying that a person can be acquitted just because he won't commit the same crime again.

Say that to the family of the victim in the case of a murder.

They require justice...even due penalty for the crime.

Should the officer who killed George Floyd be acquitted of his crime if he simply says, "I won't do it again"?

Or, is he justified because he is robed in the righteousness of a police uniform?

I don't think so...

No. Not turning over a new leaf (that sounds superficial).

But the Bible says if we repent God is just to forgive.

The idea God has to punish sin in order to forgive sinners exists only in PSA (at one time it existed only in Calvinism). It is not in the Bible because it is based on a 16th century humanistic philosophy of justice (it is worldly, not godly).

Now you are reaching. Repentance is faith in Christ (belief in Christ, dying to sin and being made alive in Him).

 

[justbyfaith]

No. Not turning over a new leaf (that sounds superficial).

But the Bible says if we repent God is just to forgive.

The idea God has to punish sin in order to forgive sinners exists only in PSA (at one time it existed only in Calvinism). It is not in the Bible because it is based on a 16th century humanistic philosophy of justice (it is worldly, not godly).

Now you are reaching. Repentance is faith in Christ (belief in Christ, dying to sin and being made alive in Him).

I suppose that we are going to have to agree to disagree; and I will weep in secret over your pride (Jeremiah 13:17) in that you have rejected God's provision for the forgiveness of your sins.

It is all over the Bible that Jesus died on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sins...it is in fact the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Those who reject the gospel don't have any real hope of salvation...and therefore, I wouldn't want to be you on the day of judgment.

But I suppose that the old saying, to each his own, applies here.

I suppose that I need to accept the things that I cannot change and allow you to believe in such a manner as will equal your everlasting condemnation.

 

[justbyfaith]

God loved the world by sending His Son that all who believes will have everlasting life.

This is in fact the gospel. How you separate it from substitutionary atonement is beyond me.

 

[John Caldwell]

I suppose that we are going to have to agree to disagree; and I will weep in secret over your pride (Jeremiah 13:17) in that you have rejected God's provision for the forgiveness of your sins.

It is all over the Bible that Jesus died on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sins...it is in fact the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Those who reject the gospel don't have any real hope of salvation...and therefore, I wouldn't want to be you on the day of judgment.

But I suppose that the old saying, to each his own, applies here.

I suppose that I need to accept the things that I cannot change and allow you to believe in such a manner as will equal your everlasting condemnation.

We can agree to disagree (I told you at the start I would not have rejected PSA a few years ago).

That said, it seems to be arrogance to insist I hold my view out of pride.

A few years ago I preached a sermon on the cross. It outlined PSA very well. The next morning I had a conviction I had preached a theory of atonement rather than Scripture. I believe this was a God given conviction.

I purchased a few whiteboards for my study and wrote down PSA on one with the corresponding verses. Then I erased what of PSA was not in those verses. PSA quickly disappeared.

I then tried to read Scripture without the addition of PSA. It is difficult because I attended SBC seminary and my tradition is PSA. But it makes sense without the additions.

This is not pride. It is, in fact, the opposite. It is saying Scripture does not need my help to make sense. It existed for over 15 centuries without PSA, and it is our artogance to think the Theory is necessary to make sense of the Cross.

 

[John Caldwell]

This is in fact the gospel. How you separate it from substitutionary atonement is beyond me.

By the words. PSA does not exist in the text of Scripture.

"God loved the world by sending His Son that all who believes will have everlasting life" is not PSA. You see PSA between the lines, but it us not really there. Scripture is not a bunch of dots needing to be connected.

 

[justbyfaith]

You still haven't adequately dealt with the justice of the Lord in what you are saying.

If God forgives people out of hand, where is the justice in that?

Tell it to the family of George Floyd, that the officer who killed him should be acquitted simply because he says, "I won't do it again."

Scripture is not a bunch of dots needing to be connected.

1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv) might tell us otherwise.

1Co 2:13, Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 

[John Caldwell]

You still haven't adequately dealt with the justice of the Lord in what you are saying.

If God forgives people out of hand, where is the justice in that?

Tell it to the family of George Floyd, that the officer who killed him should be acquitted simply because he says, "I won't do it again."



1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv) might tell us otherwise.

I have. Scripture tells us. Christ does not save us from the wages of sin which is death but through death. It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. Those who die in Christ will yet live. All judgment is given Christ.

The issue is PSA is an amalgamation of Scripture and humanistic philosophy. The result is a blending of the wages of sin (death) and the "judgment to come".

The Father was not punishing Christ on the cross with our punishment. If you think so, that is gone but it is not in the Bible. God was reconciling mankind to Himself. And what remains is the ministry of reconciliation where we reach out to man to be reconciled - not to escape physical death but to be reborn in Christ and escaor the wrath to come.

What passage states that God is just to condemn the righteous? What passage states God is not just to forgive those who repent and believe?

 

[justbyfaith]

The Father was not punishing Christ on the cross with our punishment.

So Christ was punished for His own sins?

Because He was surely punished!

 

[John Caldwell]

So Christ was punished for His own sins?

Because He was surely punished!

Christ suffered the wages of sin. He shared in our infirmity.

Like I said, there are penal and substitutionary aspects of reconciliation.

Where PSA goes wrong is at its start. It assumes God holds to a worldly humanistic philosophy and applies that in a very flawed way to divine justice (it takes a flawed 16th century philosophy to heart).

Sure Christ experienced the suffering and death of a sinner (of a man). But it was not a punishment instead of us. It was for us but not so that we would not suffer that fate. He became man, became a curse, shared in our infirmity but was without sin.

 

[justbyfaith]

What passage states that God is just to condemn the righteous? What passage states God is not just to forgive those who repent and believe?

God is just to condemn Jesus in our place in order that we might not be condemned.

It is the DIVINE EXCHANGE that enables us to even be saved; for without it we would all be condemned: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of the Lord.

His righteous blood applied to us (which carries the appropriation of His perfect life to our lives) is what saves us.

God the Father looks down at us and sees the righteous blood of Christ (Romans 4:7-8); He sees the perfect life of Jesus when He looks at us.

I know that this is sound doctrine as I have been taught it; and that therefore Titus 1:9 applies.

Tit 1:9, Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Christ suffered the wages of sin. He shared in our infirmity.

Like I said, there are penal and substitutionary aspects of reconciliation.

Where PSA goes wrong is at its start. It assumes God holds to a worldly humanistic philosophy and applies that in a very flawed way to divine justice (it takes a flawed 16th century philosophy to heart).

Sure Christ experienced the suffering and death of a sinner (of a man). But it was not a punishment instead of us. It was for us but not so that we would not suffer that fate. He became man, became a curse, shared in our infirmity but was without sin.

That doesn't make any sense. But maybe I'm missing something and hopefully you can explain it to me.

How is it that you deny penal substutionary atonement and can then turn around and say that there are penal and substitutionary aspects to atonement? If Christ experienced the suffering and death of a sinner, and this was not for His own sins, whose sins was it for if not for the sins of the whole world?

 

[justbyfaith]

It was for us but not so that we would not suffer that fate.

So we are supposed to and will suffer that fate is what you are saying; since the suffering and death of Christ does not keep us from that fate...

 

[justbyfaith]

Christ suffered the wages of sin. He shared in our infirmity.

Jesus was and is without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5).

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

So, one is forgiven over turning over a new leaf?

The blood of Jesus doesn't bring forgiveness; but a person is forgiven because they are innocent of crimes that they previously committed?

How are they forgiven? How is justice satisfied over the sins that they committed before they were born again?

If a murderer is being tried, he is not going to be acquitted just because he says he won't do it again.

There has to be a payment for what he did...retributive justice.

You are saying that a person can be acquitted just because he won't commit the same crime again.

Say that to the family of the victim in the case of a murder.

They require justice...even due penalty for the crime.

Should the officer who killed George Floyd be acquitted of his crime if he simply says, "I won't do it again"?

Or, is he justified because he is robed in the righteousness of a police uniform?

I don't think so...

Oh yes, you have correctly identified many of the concerns people have had over such a twisted denial of the clear biblical teaching....
You asked for scripture, but got philosophy and double speak. There is a reason these failed ideas are rejected.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

"justbyfaith,

God is just to condemn Jesus in our place in order that we might not be condemned.

Yes, of course
I

it is the DIVINE EXCHANGE that enables us to even be saved; for without it we would all be condemned: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of the Lord.

Most all Christians know this from day one!

His righteous blood applied to us (which carries the appropriation of His perfect life to our lives) is what saves us.

Yes...why would anyone oppose this truth, makes you wonder?

God the Father looks down at us and sees the righteous blood of Christ (Romans 4:7-8); He sees the perfect life of Jesus when He looks at us.

I know that this is sound doctrine as I have been taught it; and that therefore Titus 1:9 applies.

Tit 1:9, Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Yes, sound doctrine held by the believing CHURCH.

That doesn't make any sense. But maybe I'm missing something and hopefully you can explain it to me.

How is it that you deny penal substutionary atonement and can then turn around and say that there are penal and substitutionary aspects to atonement? If Christ experienced the suffering and death of a sinner, and this was not for His own sins, whose sins was it for if not for the sins of the whole world?

How? Double talk, carnal Philosophy, turning from truth

 

[John Caldwell]

Oh yes, you have correctly identified many of the concerns people have had over such a twisted denial of the clear biblical teaching....
You asked for scripture, but got philosophy and double speak. There is a reason these failed ideas are rejected.

Yes. I provided scripture (not the references) but I got philosophy and doublespeak in return.

That is the issue. When ever we see anyone say "this is the clear biblical teaching" when what they are saying is not in the actual text of Scripture then we know what they are saying is false.

In other words, your post is just another bunch of logical fallacies.

You have repeatedly told us what to believe and defended your indoctrination by claiming it "clear biblical teaching". Yet what you teach is not in the Bible (it is not in the text of Scripture).

The issue is one of our personal positions. I believe that Scripture is the authority for doctrine (here, Scripture alone...not commentaries, not Confessions, and not a group of men). I believe that when we consider basic, foundational doctrines we HAVE to hold to a tighter standard (it has to be in the Bible). But Scripture makes sense without adding PSA. So we shouldn't. That is one reason I will never go back to the view. The other is God has led me to believe it is error. Once you know something is fiction you can't just pretend it is fact.

Look at it this way - I do not understand how someone can affirm PSA and be a Christian. But I know they can because that was me most of my life. The gospel comes through even so twisted a theory as PSA.

 

[John Caldwell]

"justbyfaith,


Yes, of course
I

Most all Christians know this from day one!

Yes...why would anyone oppose this truth, makes you wonder?



Yes, sound doctrine held by the believing CHURCH.

That doesn't make any sense. But maybe I'm missing something and hopefully you can explain it to me.



How? Double talk, carnal Philosophy, turning from truth

Logical fallacies (again).

 

[justbyfaith]

Do you believe that Jesus had to suffer and die on the cross? Why or why not?

I believe that He did...in order to pay the penalty for our sins in order that we might be saved.

What about you?

 

[justbyfaith]

Logical fallacies (again).

Not that I see.