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

[John Caldwell]

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

What about you?

I already said the cross was necessary. The cross is absolutely necessary. But you are missing the question. I am not saying why Jesus had to die. I am asking why the cross (was the cross itself necessary)?

PSA does not care about the cross. What matters is that Christ died in public and on a tree.

So why do you think that Jesus had to die not under God's justice but under the justice of the world on a Roman cross?

 

[justbyfaith]

I already said the cross was necessary. The cross is absolutely necessary. But you are missing the question. I am not saying why Jesus had to die. I am asking why the cross (was the cross itself necessary)?

PSA does not care about the cross. What matters is that Christ died in public and on a tree.

So why do you think that Jesus had to die not under God's justice but under the justice of the world on a Roman cross?

It was not under the justice of the world that He died but under God's justice.

As I said, He was and is without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5). So He did not die for His own sin; but for ours.

In this the justice of God was satisfied; not the justice of this world.

 

[John Caldwell]

Not that I see.

Then you may want to study logical fallacies so you do not fall into the trap.

Most all Christians know this from day one!

This is called Argumentum ad populum. It is, of course, false because PSA has never been the majority Christian position. But even if it had that would not make the statement true.

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

This is called petitio principii.

Yes, sound doctrine held by the believing CHURCH.

This is just a stupid statement. The believing church has held many positions on this topic. PSA is fairly new to the church (that does not make it wrong, but it makes the statement stupid).

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes. I provided scripture (not the references)

You need to provide the references if you want to be taken seriously. Because you could just be mouthing off about scripture and not giving the true meaning of what you are talking about. In order that we might follow the Berean call (see Acts of the Apostles 17:10-11) you need to provide the references so we can check out your story more easily.

 

[John Caldwell]

It was not under the justice of the world that He died but under God's justice.

As I said, He was and is without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5). So He did not die for His own sin; but for ours.

In this the justice of God was satisfied; not the justice of this world.

What does God's law require for the charges against Christ? Crucifixion? Hanging on a tree? No, of course not. Hanging a body on a tree was a sign of being under God's curse. But under God's law Christ would have been taken out and stoned. Then His body would have been hung on a tree in public view but not overnight. The Roman Law used crucifixion.

The justice of God was satisfied, but not like you think. Can you provide even one passage that states God was punishing Christ instead of punishing us?

I already provided several passages supporting my position (I did not provide a reference, which is probably why @Anthony D'Arienzo did not realize it was Scripture....I don't believe in spoon feeding adults).

 

[John Caldwell]

You need to provide the references if you want to be taken seriously. because you could just be mouthing off about scripture and not giving the true meaning of what you are talking about. In order that we might follow the Berean call (see Acts of the Apostles 17:10-11) you need to provide the references so we can check out your story more easily.

No. I expect Christians to be able to identify Scripture and use their Bibles to test what is said.

I was a child I would ask my mother how to spell a word. She would make me get a dictionary. She did not give me hints but I had to search the word out.

I believe you are old enough to use your Bible. I am not going to spoon feed you. I've studied Scripture. I am not going to give you a reference for every passage I offer.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to know Scripture rather than ask for references at every turn. I believe people learn better when not spoon fed. That said, tell me the scripture I offered that you cannot find and I'll help as long as you have at least tried.

 

[justbyfaith]

Can you provide even one passage that states God was punishing Christ instead of punishing us?

Yes; every verse that speaks of the word propitiation; which is defined as the appeasement of wrath.

I believe you are old enough to use your Bible. I am not going to spoon feed you. I've studied Scripture. I am not going to give you a reference for every passage I offer.

I think that you are being lazy; and if not you are attempting to make it harder for people to check out your story as a Berean. This is irresponsible.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to know Scripture rather than ask for references at every turn.

When I state a doctrine I almost always back it up with a scripture reference; because I know that there are people who have not read their entire Bibles and so may not be able to find the reference easily. If you will not do the same, I understand that it may be because you have something to hide and do not want your doctrine to be examined by a clear exposition of the scriptures that you say substantiate your view.

 

[justbyfaith]

But under God's law Christ would have been taken out and stoned.

Except that Christ truly was and is God and therefore was not in violation of any law when He declared to the scribes and Pharisees of His Deity.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Not that I see.

You are all over these errors, they build and build. I am enjoying your posts as you are an honest poster. I find that honest posters do not sneak around but deal with scripture without unclear claims.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Yes; every verse that speaks of the word propitiation; which is defined as the appeasement of wrath.



I think that you are being lazy; and if not you are attempting to make it harder for people to check out your story as a Berean. This is irresponsible.



When I state a doctrine I almost always back it up with a scripture reference; because I know that there are people who have not read their entire Bibles and so may not be able to find the reference easily. If you will not do the same, I understand that it may be because you have something to hide and do not want your doctrine to be examined by a clear exposition of the scriptures that you say substantiate your view.

This pattern has been seen many times as some avoid clear investigation. Why hide in such a fashion?
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Except that Christ truly was and is God and therefore was not in violation of any law when He declared to the scribes and Pharisees of His Deity.

When people drift from truth, all manner of error grows like a fungus. Many times they claim to have believed the truth but, now have discovered the real truth with whatever defective ideas they hold.
Tragically they cannot see that they are drifting....but they are so they attack any who notice it.

 

[Candidus]

So Christ was punished for His own sins?

Because He was surely punished!

You have so much faith in dogma, and so little in Scripture!

Show us those exact words in Scripture that Jesus was "Punished"!

 

[John Caldwell]

Except that Christ truly was and is God and therefore was not in violation of any law when He declared to the scribes and Pharisees of His Deity.

Exactly!!! Now you are getting closer to Scripture.

Christ was unjustly condemned by the Jewish leaders and handed over to the hands of "wicked men" under whom He suffered and died by the pre-determined plan of God.

See? Scripture is complete. We do not need to add to it (there are no blanks to fill with PSA).

 

[Candidus]

From the Penal Substitution Cookbook

This recipe has been around for hundreds of years and is immensely popular. Some claim eating this recipe will bring miraculous intellectual health benefits, and even salvation itself! Some may say that the “proof” is in the pudding… or should we say, “Soup”!


“Gospel Soup”

First, combine a healthy amount of Tough Dogma, and Pure Assumption in equal parts and place them in a sauté pan. Under Luke-warm heat, allow them to almost simmer.

Secondly, create your own imaginary Retributive Justice, soften it until it loses all consistency, evolving it into something that is not recognizable to the taste, and add it in.

Once this is done, spice it up with Words that you do not understand the definitions of, and insist that anyone that questions it to get a Bible Dictionary you refuse to read. Feel free to add Scripture verses that have nothing to do with the soup you are making if it makes you feel more “Biblical.”

Add copious amounts of liquid until the ingredients are so watered down that you cannot taste that they are rancid. This also softens the putrid odor so it is no longer recognizable. Turn the heat up to “high” and stir clockwise until the Circular-Reasoning blends the individual ingredients up to a fervent raging boil until they become one.

Serve this slurry of hot philosophical vomit in small amounts until you can stomach it in whole portions. Once you make this recipe yours, you will have unlimited strength in your own mind that you can condemn those who dislike your recipe to an Eternity without Jesus Christ.

 

[John Caldwell]

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?

Yes, Anthony, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

I can tell by your conclusion it must be "double speak" that this topic has confused you. It is not a difficult concept to grasp, but perhaps the way it was worded hampered your understanding. I'm not always the most articulate, so maybe your failure to grasp the topic was due to how it was presented. My apologies if that is the case.

Redemption has penal and substitution aspects. Christ shared in our iniquity (the wages of sin are death, that is, the consequences or penalty for sin is death). This is by definition a punishment (a penalty inflicted; penalty here is “a disadvantage or hardship due to some action). Christ died for our sins. This is substitutionary, not in that Christ took our punishment instead of us but on our behalf. Rather than dealing with us on an individual basis Christ became the representative of mankind and experienced the wages of sin.

Think of God as One who interacts with man in covenants and you will come closer to a biblical understanding. The New Covenant is superior than the Old Covenant. Christ is the “last Adam”, that is, Christ is now the representative of mankind. God was, on the cross, reconciling man to Himself. Now begins the plea that men be reconciled to God through Christ.

So as you can hopefully grasp, even those who reject the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement affirm that there are penal and substitution aspects.

Where is PSA different? It assumes God was punishing Christ. It assumes Christ was being punished with our punishment instead of us. It assumes a judicial philosophy it cannot defend as divine justice. It empties the meaning of the cross and replaces it with humanism. It elevates man and human sin over God. It denies that God is just to forgive upon repentance and must first punish sins in order to forgive them. It applies a flawed law-court system (a 16th century law court system) to the work of the Cross, assuming someone must take a loss for a crime but never grasping that the offense was not one of loss.

False doctrines are typically comprised mostly of truths. It is the little tweaks that make them twist the truths into a lie. PSA is no exception. It changes small concepts, small words (like “for” to “instead of”; “wages” to “punishment”; etc.).

I hope that helped you grasp the concept.

John

 

[Taken]

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

Never heard of this before...

Definition. The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty for mankind's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it.

Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is the idea that Jesus died "for us," as propagated by the classic and objective paradigms of atonement in Christianity, which regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, 'instead of' them.

So there is some "Teaching" called by Two different Names...that sounds like unnecessary gobbledygook.

Jesus' SINLESS prepared Body was sent to Earth to Accomplish many Things.
(Regarding this topic)
* Offer His Prepared SINLESS Body for the Sins of all natural born bodies, which ARE all Conceived and Born IN SIN.
* Jesus' Offering WAS "HIS "pure SINLESS" BLOOD", paying the Price Required FOR SIN of "every Humans Sin.
** A Human IS Born IN SIN. A humans Life IS its Blood. A humans Blood is Not SINLESS.
Payment For Sin REQUIRES "Pure Sinnless Blood"...(something a human Does NOT Have)
* Blood IS the LIFE of a Human Body. The only WAY For Blood to be "given", is for the Blood to be Removed from within the Body.
Once the Blood IS removed from the Body...the Body becomes Dead.
* So of course Jesus making the Offering of Paying for the Sins of Mankind required the Pure Blood of Jesus' Prepared Body, to be Spilled Outside of His Body. And it was so.
(John 19:
[34] But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.)
* ^ The Offering of Jesus' Pure SINLESS Blood Accomplished.

* KEY Word - OFFERING

The Offering is to all of mankind.
The Offering: neither Punished or Atoned Any Person.

An Offering Must needs be: accepted, taken, received BY a Person, "Before" Jesus" Offering will Have ANY Effect upon any person.

Jesus' OFFERING, (of His Pure Blood) IS a TWO Fold Effect: (for ANY individual who Accepts His Offering).

* 1) Acceptance...by an Individual...affords the individual Gods "Forgiveness" (by God) for their Natural Birth of being naturally born In Sin and their Commission of Sins in Disbelief of God, (standing Against God).
* 2) Acceptance...by an Individual of Jesus' Offering of Eternal Life (with God).

John 6
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Eph 1:
[9] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hathpurposed in himself:

Heb 10:
[14] For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Them that ARE for ever sanctified...Are Them Who have "Accepted" His OFFERING.

The OP question makes no sense to me.
The Cross was Jesus' manner of Death, which is irrelevant to His "purposed Offering".

As far as some Theoretical teaching for Atonement...
No doubt Jesus Offered Atonement for mankind's Sin...Yet the Offering Must be Accepted, Before it is Applicable to an individual.
Crucifixion was a usual way for Roman authorities to publically put a man to death.
Back street stoning was a way for Jews to put a man to death (however: Jews were under Roman Authority and it was By Roman Law Illegal for Jews to Stone a man to death).
Several times Jews attempted to Illegaly Stone Jesus and Jesus slipped away from the crowds, preventing Jews from committing an illegal act.
Jesus knew the Romans would come for Him, and without struggle Jesus surrendered Himself to the Roman authorities. Three Unjust trials were held, findings of the trial report calling Jesus Guilty, YET the Roman Governor did not agree and refused to Announce and Pronounce Jesus GUILTY. The Governors (yearly festival) Feast was approaching, (which observed a Roman Law in appeasement for consideration for Jews, whereby Jews could speak out and Call for a Release of ONE prisoner set for the death penalty.) Many Jews did Not call out for Jesus' release. And further Many Jews "instigated" by Jewish Pharisees called for Jesus' Crucifixion...and it was so...without Jesus' pleading for their reconsideration or struggling to fight them to escape the sentence.

Jesus' Offering DID NOT Change the WHOLE world of Mankind.
Jesus' Offering Changes Individuals Who Accept His Offering.
And Regardless of WHO accepts or does not accept Jesus' Offering, mankind All have Corrupt Blood and FLESH and that IS Mortal and IS subject To Die. God Requires it.
(Gen 9:
[5] And surely your blood of your lives will I require;

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[DPMartin]

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.

I hold a Christus Victor view of Reconciliation. This view considers God as sending His Son as a sin offering, that it pleased God to “crush Him” in the context that Christ suffered and died “at the hands of wicked men” but that this was also “in accordance with God’s predetermined plan”.

Christ suffered and died at the hands of the world (at the hands of wicked men), not at the hands of God. The cross was necessary because the cross was the “worlds” condemnation. It was necessary that Christ be handed over by the Jewish leadership (religious leadership) into the hands of the “wicked” (the secular powers of that time, the powers of the world) and Christ suffer and die that specific death under those specific circumstances.

Christ had to be condemned NOT by God but by the world. God will never condemn the righteous. The point of the cross is that the world DID condemn the righteous. God vindicated His Son, raising Him to life, given victor over the powers of sin and death – the powers of this world – that has held man in bondage.

That is just a short answer, but it should be enough to explain why Christus Victor (and most non-PSA theories) absolutely depends on Christ's suffering and death upon a Roman cross and being raised on the third day.

BUT

PSA does not necessitate the cross itself (as long as Christ died in public and His death concluded by being hung on a tree or any type of wooden structure). I am not sure that advocates of PSA have realized this.

Sure, the cross was foretold so it would happen that way. Sure, under Roman law this is how it would occur. But none of this speaks to it as being necessary (that our redemption needing the cross). Another interesting thing is PSA does not acknowledge that Christ died not under God’s law but under the law of the world. But that's another topic.

correct:

God's Judgement is Life any other judgement is death, especially man's. so, Jesus willingly and knowingly experienced man's judgement which is death. how all that came about was foretold. the evening Judas brought the authorities to the Mt. of olives is when Jesus began His journey into the heart of the earth. Jesus came into the world as any man does and left the world as the worst of man does. He had to come and be where we are to get us out of where we are.


also the Passover offering (if my memory serves) is killed by the one who its for. hence though the Jewish authorities did judge Jesus worthy for the cross (which priests are supposed to do in the case of offerings) it was the romans that killed Him.

 

[John Caldwell]

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

Never heard of this before...

Definition. The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty for mankind's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it.

Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is the idea that Jesus died "for us," as propagated by the classic and objective paradigms of atonement in Christianity, which regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, 'instead of' them.

So there is some "Teaching" called by Two different Names...that sounds like unnecessary gobbledygook.

Jesus' SINLESS prepared Body was sent to Earth to Accomplish many Things.
(Regarding this topic)
* Offer His Prepared SINLESS Body for the Sins of all natural born bodies, which ARE all Conceived and Born IN SIN.
* Jesus' Offering WAS "HIS "pure SINLESS" BLOOD", paying the Price Required FOR SIN of "every Humans Sin.
** A Human IS Born IN SIN. A humans Life IS its Blood. A humans Blood is Not SINLESS.
Payment For Sin REQUIRES "Pure Sinnless Blood"...(something a human Does NOT Have)
* Blood IS the LIFE of a Human Body. The only WAY For Blood to be "given", is for the Blood to be Removed from within the Body.
Once the Blood IS removed from the Body...the Body becomes Dead.
* So of course Jesus making the Offering of Paying for the Sins of Mankind required the Pure Blood of Jesus' Prepared Body, to be Spilled Outside of His Body. And it was so.
(John 19:
[34] But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.)
* ^ The Offering of Jesus' Pure SINLESS Blood Accomplished.

* KEY Word - OFFERING

The Offering is to all of mankind.
The Offering: neither Punished or Atoned Any Person.

An Offering Must needs be: accepted, taken, received BY a Person, "Before" Jesus" Offering will Have ANY Effect upon any person.

Jesus' OFFERING, (of His Pure Blood) IS a TWO Fold Effect: (for ANY individual who Accepts His Offering).

* 1) Acceptance...by an Individual...affords the individual Gods "Forgiveness" (by God) for their Natural Birth of being naturally born In Sin and their Commission of Sins in Disbelief of God, (standing Against God).
* 2) Acceptance...by an Individual of Jesus' Offering of Eternal Life (with God).

John 6
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Eph 1:
[9] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hathpurposed in himself:

Heb 10:
[14] For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Them that ARE for ever sanctified...Are Them Who have "Accepted" His OFFERING.

The OP question makes no sense to me.
The Cross was Jesus' manner of Death, which is irrelevant to His "purposed Offering".

As far as some Theoretical teaching for Atonement...
No doubt Jesus Offered Atonement for mankind's Sin...Yet the Offering Must be Accepted, Before it is Applicable to an individual.
Crucifixion was a usual way for Roman authorities to publically put a man to death.
Back street stoning was a way for Jews to put a man to death (however: Jews were under Roman Authority and it was By Roman Law Illegal for Jews to Stone a man to death).
Several times Jews attempted to Illegaly Stone Jesus and Jesus slipped away from the crowds, preventing Jews from committing an illegal act.
Jesus knew the Romans would come for Him, and without struggle Jesus surrendered Himself to the Roman authorities. Three Unjust trials were held, findings of the trial report calling Jesus Guilty, YET the Roman Governor did not agree and refused to Announce and Pronounce Jesus GUILTY. The Governors (yearly festival) Feast was approaching, (which observed a Roman Law in appeasement for consideration for Jews, whereby Jews could speak out and Call for a Release of ONE prisoner set for the death penalty.) Many Jews did Not call out for Jesus' release. And further Many Jews "instigated" by Jewish Pharisees called for Jesus' Crucifixion...and it was so...without Jesus' pleading for their reconsideration or struggling to fight them to escape the sentence.

Jesus' Offering DID NOT Change the WHOLE world of Mankind.
Jesus' Offering Changes Individuals Who Accept His Offering.
And Regardless of WHO accepts or does not accept Jesus' Offering, mankind All have Corrupt Blood and FLESH and that IS Mortal and IS subject To Die. God Requires it.
(Gen 9:
[5] And surely your blood of your lives will I require;

Glory to God,
Taken

Hey Taken,

While you may see the question of the OP as not making sense, your answer answers the question.

Under PSA the cross itself is irrelevant to Christ's "purposed Offering". Under other views of the atonement both are important.

Jesus' offering actually did change the whole of mankind (not that all men are saved, but that "all judgment is given to the Son"). But there are two things being mixed together here - death as the wages of sin and the Judgment that is to come. Jesus conquered death, freeing us from the bonds of sin and death by making us alive in Him. That is the reconciliation. The second part (as a result of Christ's work) is that all judgment is given to Christ (it is Christ-centered). PSA confuses the two.

 

[Taken]

Hey Taken,

While you may see the question of the OP as not making sense, your answer answers the question.

Under PSA the cross itself is irrelevant to Christ's "purposed Offering". Under other views of the atonement both are important.

Jesus' offering actually did change the whole of mankind (not that all men are saved, but that "all judgment is given to the Son"). But there are two things being mixed together here - death as the wages of sin and the Judgment that is to come. Jesus conquered death, freeing us from the bonds of sin and death by making us alive in Him. That is the reconciliation. The second part (as a result of Christ's work) is that all judgment is given to Christ (it is Christ-centered). PSA confuses the two.

Thanks for the clarification of the OP question.

Agree the PSA is purporting a confusing irrelevant mix.

While What ALL God Does is purposed and Relevant...God has revealed the paramount importance of ORDER and "His WAY" of how He accomplishes His ORDER and His WAY and how human men have been Given an Example, (OT by hearing/ NT by hearing And Seeing)...for human men to mimic, and Accomplish Gods ORDER and WAY.)
Which results in the human man becoming Accepted by God as Perfect-ed. (Not perfect, but Perfected, by Gods Power).

God Bless,
Taken

 

[farouk]

Thanks for the clarification of the OP question.

Agree the PSA is purporting a confusing irrelevant mix.

While What ALL God Does is purposed and Relevant...God has revealed the paramount importance of ORDER and "His WAY" of how He accomplishes His ORDER and His WAY and how human men have been Given an Example, (OT by hearing/ NT by hearing And Seeing)...for human men to mimic, and Accomplish Gods ORDER and WAY.)
Which results in the human man becoming Accepted by God as Perfect-ed. (Not perfect, but Perfected, by Gods Power).

God Bless,
Taken

@Taken I'm having difficulty following some of the terminology on this thread, but I do think Romans 8 is a wonderfully relevant and searching chapter on the subject.