Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

[John Caldwell]

Hmm...I have a problem with the trinity theory. My mind melds God and the Holy Spirit. The most I can grasp is a binity. God IS Spirit. I don't think He is one spirit and the Holy Spirit is another Spirit. So my brain sees God as the Holy Spirit. And honestly, not even sure I see a binity. Because Jesus IS God.
As long as a man knows Jesus is God, I don't care to fuss over what his mind can grasp past: Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

I think it is best to simply know the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of God."

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I think it is best to simply know the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of God."

Whatever way you grasp it. Men maybe shouldn't tell other men how they must try to grasp God or insist they recite it.

 

[John Caldwell]

Whatever way you grasp it. Men maybe shouldn't tell other men how they must try to grasp God or insist they recite it.

Perhaps this is why Scripture condemns judging the servant of Another.

 

[reformed1689]

@David Taylor has been arguing for a long time that the Trinity is not really stated in Scripture but is taught by Scripture. This is how he has tried to support "implied truth" as Scripture itself.

This is only half true. I have said that there is not one direct passage that states the Trinity but it is definitely taught in Scripture. It's not implied. It's written there, just not in one single place.

 

[reformed1689]

As an exam of poor hermeneutics:

@David Taylor changes "wages" to "penalty" (which I think is fair) and says the "penalty" of sin is death. But then takes it farther and changes "penalty" to "punishment".

This is called eisegesis. A punishment accesses a penalty but only in the retributive form. ("Penalty" does not mean "punishment" as both imposed and unimposed consequences are also penalties).

David is wrong to alter God's Word to meet his theory. It is a sin.

All penalties are punishment John.

 

[reformed1689]

You have repeated claimed that denying Jesus' divinity was not denying what was explicitly stated in the text of Scripture but denying what Scripture teaches. I have repeatedly called this claim ignorant and a product of biblical illiteracy.

I have never said that actually. Why do you lie so much?

If someone denies the Word was with God and was God then yes, they would be denying John 1. If they deny Jesus and the Father are One then they are denying John 10:30.

So if you reject what Scripture states plainly you reject Scripture. Thank you for finally conceding that point.

I do not to sound mean but you keep on making claims you cannot back up. Are you a coward? A liar? One who slanders and falsely accuses the breathern? If not then grow a backbone and tell me what verse we (those of us who reject your theory) actually reject (the verse - not your interpretation of the verse).

You know what I believe because I provided it at the request if @Steve Owen.

What claim have I made that I cannot back up?

 

[Helen]

This is also false (and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with Christian theology).

If the Cross is viewed as God reconciling mankind to Himself (not counting man's sins against them) and this is viewed as having two results - some saved and "in Christ", others lost and will be judged by Christ, then the atonement in terms of the Father offering the Son is a universal atonement.

Under the "classic view" - all Christians believe in Universal Atonement except those who deny that all judgment has been given to Christ.

Under Penal Substitution Theory all believe in Limited Atonement except those who deny universal salvation.

I know you have studied your theories and tradition, David. We all should know our beliefs as well. BUT you cannot speak to Christian Theology as a whole without understanding Christian Theology in general.

That is the value of this type of forum. Instead of making statements that depend on projecting your assumptions on other people you have the opportunity to understand what other people believe. You waste that opportunity.

I may not agree with everything you write and believe.
But I do "take my hat off" to your good, calm, and friendly posts.
Well done brother! I wish we were all like you in attitude.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

1 John 1:6, 8 and 10 are not "already Christians," at least not born again Christians, and we MUST be born again of the Spirit. And if they are not born again, they may never be, and guess what? They will not be headed to heaven. Did you even read 1 John 3:5-9? That describes a true born again Christian.

I don't agree. John is writing to Christians, those who have been born again (he calls them "children" or "little children") and giving them warning them about heretics (Gnostics - antichrists) and encourages them to continue to walk in the light and confess sins. John tests these Christians by beginning verses with the conditional word "if"..if we say...if we walk...if we confess. Living the Christian life is not about just talking about it, but living it.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I don't agree. John is writing to Christians, those who have been born again (he calls them "children" or "little children") and giving them warning them about heretics (Gnostics - antichrists) and encourages them to continue to walk in the light and confess sins. John tests these Christians by beginning verses with the conditional word "if"..if we say...if we walk...if we confess. Living the Christian life is not about just talking about it, but living it.

There are also conditions to being a Christian. I am convinced that 1 John 1:9 is our first true repentance to receive the Holy Spirit in order to no longer be a slave to sin. The way you seem to see it is we will always be a slave to sin. No! When Jesus frees you from sin, you are free indeed. John 8:34-36

 

[Helen]

I don't agree. John is writing to Christians, those who have been born again (he calls them "children" or "little children") and giving them warning them about heretics (Gnostics - antichrists) and encourages them to continue to walk in the light and confess sins. John tests these Christians by beginning verses with the conditional word "if"..if we say...if we walk...if we confess. Living the Christian life is not about just talking about it, but living it.

Well that is good...at least we can agree on something

 

[DNB]

Reformed is interchangeable with Protestant, so that is neither here nor there.

Not even close. Go tell that to an Arminian or Methodist or Lutheran, or Anglican/Episcopalian,....

 

[DNB]

The problem with Penal Substitution is four fold.
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.

Great fundamental points!

 

[DNB]

Talkng about yourself again?

He does this repeatedly Mungo, get used to it!

 

[DNB]

You really think that Christians who believe in Penal Substitution are either (1) stupid, (2) naive, (3) self-deceived, or (4) incapable of rightly dividing the Truth and comprehending Scripture.

Which clearly shows that your heretical frame of mind has caused you to come to a point where Scripture means nothing to you. It is all "theory".

This obviously did not happen overnight. You chose to be influenced by those who hold to questionable doctrines, and now you are actually OPPOSING THE CORE OF THE GOSPEL. Just go back to Galatians 1 and see what the Holy Spirit says through Paul about those who bring another gospel.

Get off your deluded horse Enoch111. He's opposing YOU, JUST YOU, AND YOU ALONE!
Don't equate your fallible opinion with that of Divine Gospel.
There is so much irony in your dogmatism, you truly incriminate yourself on such a large scale.

 

[DNB]

Trying to grasp this part. Can't quite grab it.

I think he means something like a consequence is not necessarily legislated. One will not be convicted of making a bad choice, even though it has consequences. The repercussions were not imposed. Whereas, on the other hand, law imposes a penalty and retribution.

 

[DNB]

Punishment is imposing a penalty in retribution for an offensive.

A penalty is something suffered (it comes from a word meaning "pain"). It can be the result of a punishment but it can also simply be a consequence of an action (not necessarily imposed).

@David Taylor is changing the actual word used to prevent other views (like the classic view, moral influence, Christus Victor, recipitulation, etc.). Those little changes have consequences to the actual text of Scripture.

Be extremely cautious of those who substantiate their doctrinal beliefs, based on either the definition or etymology of a single word. The Bible is never that isolated in its impartation of doctrine. If one hasn't grasped the over-arching principle of a particular Biblical doctrine, of which the Word of God never fails to convey, then they resort to breaking down a verse, word by word, thinking that they've done in-depth research on the matter.
One should be able to speak on a fundamental level as to why the principle is sound, and how it gives glory to God by being implemented as such.
Isolating words in one's proof-text is one of the worst, yet prevalent, hermeneutical practices.

 

[reformed1689]

Not even close. Go tell that to an Arminian or Methodist or Lutheran, or Anglican/Episcopalian,....

Reformed may not be interchangeable with Protestant but it is interchangeable with biblical.

 

[DNB]

Reformed may not be interchangeable with Protestant but it is interchangeable with biblical.

...how did I know that you might say something to that effect (your handle)?
No, I find it way too rigid, and lacking a great deal of insight as to what the Scriptures are actually attempting to convey.
In other words, I can appreciate the proof-text that a Reformer will use to establish the basis for their doctrines, but I find that they lack the ability to harmonize those with the undeniable and prevalent counter-text.
I perceive Reformed doctrine to be derived from, not a radical, but a rather shallow, comprehension of Scripture.
It fails to grasp the paradox of its wisdom.

 

[Steve Owen]

The problem with Penal Substitution is four fold.
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God – but Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

If the Lord Jesus were an ordinary man, you would have a point but He is the One in whom, 'All the fullness of the Godhead lives bodily' (Colossians 2:9). Turretine wrote, 'Christ alone ought to be estimated at a higher value than all men together. The dignity of an infinite person swallows up....all the infinities of punishment due to us.' Our Lord's sufferings, though they lasted only a finite time, were infinite in value because He is infinitely worthy.

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

All the sins of His people were laid upon the Lord Jesus and He bore them willingly for us (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24; John 10:17-18). On the cross, He was personally innocent, but judicially guilty of every sin committed by His people down the ages.

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.

Here you have the problem with a general atonement. Christ laid down His life for the sheep, not for the goats (John 10:11).

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.

God's mercy is revealed in His giving of Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. If that is not mercy, I don't know what is!

Moreover the whole theory introduced conflict into the Godhead

No it doesn't. The Father sends the Son; the Son does not send the Father. Does that introduce conflict into the Godhead? The Son obeys the Father, prays to the Father; the Father does not obey or pray to the Son. Does that introduce conflict? The Son gets tired and needs to sleep (Mark 4:38); God never grows weary (Isaiah 40:28). Does that introduce conflict? Read John 10:15-18. Does that introduce conflict? For a more detailed response, here's something I wrote a while back in response to just this sort of argument: Penal Substitution and the Trinity

The whole idea is grotesque.

On the contrary, it's the most wonderful thing I ever heard of! I praise God for it every day.

 

[Joseph77]

On the contrary, it's the most wonderful thing I ever heard of! I praise God for it every day.

COOL!

There is something more wonderful you might hear this year. (God Knows)