Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

[John Caldwell]

Human reasoning and speculation trump Scripture (for some at least).

We agree.


As evidence - what verse did I reject (not what human reasoning I rejected but what actual verse) ?

 

[reformed1689]

No. I believe that Christ died for human sin.

Your accusation only works under the pretence of Penal Substitution Theory.

I believe because of the Cross those in Christ will not be judged while those not will face a Christ-centered judgment.

So basically Christ had no reason to die except for some strange construct of a needed payment for salvation except you have no idea what that payment was for, and then on top of that, you don't believe that Christ accomplished something on the cross, just the potential for something.

Sorry, I believe Christ actually died to save someone, not dying for something that might have been for naught and somehow relies on humans to accomplish.

 

[reformed1689]

We agree.


As evidence - what verse did I reject (not what human reasoning I rejected but what actual verse) ?

You reject them BECAUSE of your human reasoning.

 

[marks]

The certificate of debt was canceled.

Colossians 2:14
He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.

Rather than this being divine righteousness manifestes through the law I believe it is divine righteousness manifested apart from the law.

It was canceled noy by satisfying punishment but by a "second Adam" (a re-creation of mankind).

All good points.

Yes. This is the same act.

On this I just can't seem to see it that way. God speaks of this as "in the likeness of sinful flesh", tells us . . .

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

And then says, "He became sin, who knew no sin". And this that we may become the righteousness of God in Him. There seems to me to be a divine transaction involving God and man.

I think you would agree with the thought that God did not "impute man's sins to Jesus", is that correct?

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

All good points.



On this I just can't seem to see it that way. God speaks of this as "in the likeness of sinful flesh", tells us . . .

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

And then says, "He became sin, who knew no sin". And this that we may become the righteousness of God in Him. There seems to me to be a divine transaction involving God and man.

I think you would agree with the thought that God did not "impute man's sins to Jesus", is that correct?

Much love!

Yes, I agree.

 

[reformed1689]

You did not encounter Justin Martyer's view tending towards recipitulation, Ransom Theory as the early dominant view, Ablard's influence on the Classic view, Aquinis' reworking of Anselm's position.... Yet you expect us to believe you studied Church history?

https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf

 

[reformed1689]

The certificate of debt was canceled.

EXACTLY this is penal substitution. He paid the penalty for our sin in our place.

 

[John Caldwell]

https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf

Does this mean "no"?

Posting from Masters seminary is not very impressive. I thought you went to Liberty. (or were you just posting someone who agrees with you?)

 

[reformed1689]

Does this mean "no"?

Posting from Masters seminary is not very impressive. I thought you went to Liberty.

I did go to Liberty, what does that have to do with posting a journal article from Master's Seminary? My guess is you didn't even read it. It blows your theory out of the water and shows PSA was very present during the first 1,000 years of the church.

 

[John Caldwell]

EXACTLY this is penal substitution. He paid the penalty for our sin in our place.

wrong.
Penal Substitution Theory teaches that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

But it is an example of the issue here.

To you "the certificate of debt was canceled" means "the certificate of debt was paid by God punishing Christ instead of punishing us".

This is eisegesis.

Do you know the difference between a debt being paid and a debt being canceled?

 

[reformed1689]

wrong.
Penal Substitution Theory teaches that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

Punishment as defined as paying the penalty for sin. You keep trying to change definitions.

 

[John Caldwell]

Punishment as defined as paying the penalty for sin. You keep trying to change definitions.

You said "canceled" means "paid by punishment".

 

[reformed1689]

You said "canceled" means "paid by punishment".

Really? quote it. I did not say that actually. BUT punishment can and does mean imposing the penalty.

 

[John Caldwell]

I did go to Liberty, what does that have to do with posting a journal article from Master's Seminary? My guess is you didn't even read it. It blows your theory out of the water and shows PSA was very present during the first 1,000 years of the church.

I have read it. It does not change history.

The idea that Penal Substitution Theory was held before the Reformation because others have stated the same passages we all agree on is no evidence at all.

It is not about pitting sources against each other but going directly to the original sources.

Did you notice that none of the quotes in that paper actually state Penal Substitution Theory?

None speak of God as punishing Christ instead of us.

For example, the Clement quote:

“Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.”

Basil the Great: “By the blood of Christ, through faith, we have been cleansed from all sin."

And Eusebius: "But his wounds became our saviors."

That is not Penal Substitution Theory. We all believe the above as true.

EVEN the Martin Luther quotes fall short of Penal Substitution Theory:

"Therefore Christ was not only crucified and died, but by divine love sin was laid uponh Him."

"He has and bears all the sins of all men in His body—not in the sense that He hasc ommitted them but in the sense that He took these sins, committed by us, upon His own body, in order to make satisfaction for them with His own blood."

"For you do not yet have Christ even though you know that He is God and man. You trulyh ave Him only when you believe that this altogether pure and innocent Person has beeng ranted to you by the Father as your High Priest and Redeemer, yes, as your slave. Putting
off His innocence and holiness and putting on your sinful person, He bore your sin, death, and curse; He became a sacrifice and a curse for you, in order thus to set you free from the curse of the Law."


You live on assumption and projection, David (Do you know Adam Schiff by chance?).

 

[John Caldwell]

He paid the penalty for our sin in our place.

I'll see your theory and raise you Scripture:

1 Peter 3:18

Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh, but by being made alive in the spirit.

 

[Helen]

Regardless, Jesus did not suffer and die instead of us but for us. That is the language Scripture uses (not "instead" but "for"). The difference is the distinction between "substitute" and "because".

But what about the scape goat who had the sins of Israel placed upon him then dropped far out in the wilderness bearing their sins away.

I still think it is a play on words...in Egypt the sacrificial lamb died in each house , so that the first born son would not die ...each lamb dies instead of the eldest son.

You can't just change 'the type' in the OT...

 

[John Caldwell]

But what about the scape goat who had the sins of Israel placed upon him then dropped far out in the wilderness bearing their sins away.

I still think it is a play on words...in Egypt the sacrificial lamb died in each house , so that the first born son would not die ...each lamb dies instead of the eldest son.

You can't just change 'the type' in the OT...

Actually, the lamb slain was not instead of the eldest child. It was so that death would pass over.

 

[Helen]

Actually, the lamb slain was not instead of the eldest child. It was so that death would pass over.

Says you

To me it is all one and the same...in the outer court , the priests cut the throat of the lambs to take away the sins of the sinner who brought the lamb to them..to die instead of themselves. God required blood.

Jesus was The Last Lamb, He took our sins ...

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I am not "dodging" the question.

I said that I DO believe a person who is a Roman Catholic can be a Christian.

(I do not know what Mormons believe, so I can only say I do not share your view that they are beyond salvation).

A person is a Christian by being a disciple of Christ, the Son of God, and saved in & by Him. They are found in every group.
A person is NOT made a Christian on saved by their ability to pass a theology test.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I didn't ask if you believed that there are saved people within the RCC I believe that too. I asked if you believed RCC was Christian. And as for Mormons, they are NOT Christian. They are a cult. They also don't believe Jesus is God.

Actually, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 100% believe that Jesus Christ is 100% the Only Begotten Son of God. Discipleship in Him is what makes a person a Christian. That's the central and most important thing.