The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[John Caldwell]

Hi John,

This is how I think also. I think of Jesus as our Ark. God judges humanity, but In Christ, we survive that judgment, just like Noah survived the flood.

But I fail to see the difference. God judges sin. If we are not In Christ, we will receive the condemnation for our sins. If we are In Christ, then Jesus' death is mine also, and being in Him, I can survive it.

And why must I die? God said . . . the soul that sins shall die. I've sinned, therefore I must die. But my death would destroy me, I cannot survive death. But in Christ, I've been crucified with Christ, yet I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.

I still see this as substitutionary. He died in my place, so I can die in Him, and survive my death.

Clear as mud?

Much love!

I think that I get what you are saying. There are presuppositions that I believe each side has to address.
I agree that Christ died as a representative for mankind. This is evident in Him being the "last Adam" or the representative of the "new man". Also, Christ suffered the death that we deserved. He took upon Himself the curse and became man. Death spread to all mankind because all have sin. But Jesus did not sin, yet He died to save us.

Perhaps this is, in that way, substitutionary. The Atonement is infinitely greater than we can fully comprehend much less squeeze into a little theological box. Eternal God became a man and died to save us. How arrogant would we be to think that we know all of the implications of that?

We can know a few things. We can know that God was not wrathful towards Christ. We can know that God did not separate from Christ. We can know that God did not punish Christ. The reason we can know these things is because Scripture testifies that they are true (Christ is God's beloved Son, God does not condemn the just; Christ is righteous; Jesus is God; God is immutable in nature).

Beyond that, you are probably more suited than I to articulate the cross.

Someone once said that the most important verse in the Bible is "in the beginning God". Sometimes I get stuck thinking about that. And that's just the first four words of Scripture.

 

[marks]

I'm sure he will.
In the meantime you should reread his post and get ready for his reply.
Thought I was doing you a favor...
Guess not.

I've read his post very carefully, and I'm hoping that he does reply. There is a point to be made. But I suspect that he will not.

But I appreciate your good will towards me!

Much love!

 

[marks]

You can call it *retributive* justice but I would prefer to call it divine justice. And there is no avoiding this without perverting the truth. Human beings cannot possibly understand what a great offence it is to God (who is absolutely holy and righteous) when sins are committed.

But Noah's Flood makes it perfectly clear that divine justice required the total destruction of all living creatures because sin and wickedness on the earth had exceeded any allowance by God. And in the future the Tribulation and Great Tribulation will be periods of God's wrath being poured out upon the unbelieving, the ungodly, the wicked, and the enemies of Christ.

I think what some fail to realize is that when humanity sinned, that "created in the image of God" became perverted, and perversions do not abide with God. Perversions are to be destroyed.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Yes...well..you realized something important....
It's not an empty accusation.

And so I question, who is teaching that? That God gives grace to sin. Drop some names, or admit the emptiness.

As it stands, this is just one more straw man. OH, your stand is grace to sin . . . and then argue against that.

I believe episkopos finds it much easier to discuss doctrine with his own straw men, than with me.

Much love!

 

[marks]

There are MANY on these forums that state that GRACE allows one to live as they want and STILL be saved.

Can you point to one?

That want to live in sin? I imagine that's what you mean, right? Who exactly is it here on this forum that states that they want to live in sin?

Much love! And looking for an answer.

 

[marks]

I think that I get what you are saying. There are presuppositions that I believe each side has to address.
I agree that Christ died as a representative for mankind. This is evident in Him being the "last Adam" or the representative of the "new man". Also, Christ suffered the death that we deserved. He took upon Himself the curse and became man. Death spread to all mankind because all have sin. But Jesus did not sin, yet He died to save us.

Perhaps this is, in that way, substitutionary. The Atonement is infinitely greater than we can fully comprehend much less squeeze into a little theological box. Eternal God became a man and died to save us. How arrogant would we be to think that we know all of the implications of that?

We can know a few things. We can know that God was not wrathful towards Christ. We can know that God did not separate from Christ. We can know that God did not punish Christ. The reason we can know these things is because Scripture testifies that they are true (Christ is God's beloved Son, God does not condemn the just; Christ is righteous; Jesus is God; God is immutable in nature).

Beyond that, you are probably more suited than I to articulate the cross.

Someone once said that the most important verse in the Bible is "in the beginning God". Sometimes I get stuck thinking about that. And that's just the first four words of Scripture.

Hi John,

I happen to think that you just articulated this very well!!

Much love!

 

[GodsGrace]

And so I question, who is teaching that? That God gives grace to sin. Drop some names, or admit the emptiness.

As it stands, this is just one more straw man. OH, your stand is grace to sin . . . and then argue against that.

I believe episkopos finds it much easier to discussed doctrine with his own straw men, than with me.

Much love!

I could give you names.
There are quite a few on a forum called Christianchat.com
Just go there and spend a week there...you'll readily know who they are.
They'll tell you right out that they could sin and still be saved.
They'll call you names and be the MOST UNCHRISTIAN people around and tell you they're still saved.

Go take a look.
Some post there a lot. You'll know who they are.

 

[GodsGrace]

Can you point to one?

That want to live in sin? I imagine that's what you mean, right? Who exactly is it here on this forum that states that they want to live in sin?

Much love! And looking for an answer.

No one on THIS forum that I can think of.
This does not mean they don't exist on other forums.

 

[marks]

I could give you names.
There are quite a few on a forum called Christianchat.com
Just go there and spend a week there...you'll readily know who they are.
They'll tell you right out that they could sin and still be saved.
They'll call you names and be the MOST UNCHRISTIAN people around and tell you they're still saved.

Go take a look.
Some post there a lot. You'll know who they are.

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about members of Christianty Board, "Loving people living community".

If you mean, there are people out there on the internet saying . . . anything . . all sorts of things . . .

Of course, there are.

But you said, "live as they want." As if people claim salvation, but that they want to sin, and claim grace as a cover for that. Hm.

But as far as being called things, and having people act towards you in an unchristian manner, I get plenty of that right here!

What about people on this forum? Anyone saying that they want to sin? Who?

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

You can call it *retributive* justice but I would prefer to call it divine justice. And there is no avoiding this without perverting the truth. Human beings cannot possibly understand what a great offence it is to God (who is absolutely holy and righteous) when sins are committed.

But Noah's Flood makes it perfectly clear that divine justice required the total destruction of all living creatures because sin and wickedness on the earth had exceeded any allowance by God. And in the future the Tribulation and Great Tribulation will be periods of God's wrath being poured out upon the unbelieving, the ungodly, the wicked, and the enemies of Christ.

That is what it is called (“retributive justice”). In other words, my sin has created a debt that God must satisfy before God can forgive me (the debt must be paid). What matters is not my state (if I have changed) but the fulfillment of the requirement of justice.

Calling it “divine justice” is not helpful as this is one thing the topic involves (the type of justice that is “divine justice”).

Scripture gives another account of the flood. Rather than God destroying man to satisfy the demands of divine justice, Scripture tells us that God destroyed the men because God was sorry that He had made an on earth and was grieved because they had become so wicked. This is a far cry from stating that divine justice required the total destruction of all living creatures because they were wicked.

Of all the attributes of God, why do you believe justice to be God’s central or defining attribute?

The reason I ask is had you chosen another attribute your theology would look differently.

For example, if love was God’s central or defining attribute the theology would be different. God would have sent Christ into the world to suffer as a ransom for mankind. Having undergone the human experience by being obedient even to death Jesus would have suffered all it is to be human yet without sinning himself. God could have then justified Christ by raising Him to life as the first of many to come (of those who would be “in Christ”). God would be both just and the justifier of sinners. God would be just because all judgment would be given to the Son and sin would be addressed as men would be saved not from but through death. God would be the justifier of sinners who believe because they would be raised to life in Christ.

Where you end depends on where you start. The question is why you choose to start with justice?

 

[Episkopos]

Here we are at the discussed post...

There are MANY on these forums that state that GRACE allows one to live as they want and STILL be saved.

Apparently you haven't run across them yet.
But you will.

Yes...as in....the soul that sins...it shall live. Didn't the devil say..."you won't die!" It's all just peace and prosperity!

Many see grace as a free pass on sinning. It is called "the gospel OF grace." The real gospel is the gospel ACCORDING to grace.

This confusion is due to seeing grace as forgiveness due to a religious status instead of empowerment from God by faith. These will look up grace in a man made dictionary where it says..."unmerited favour"...and then fully trusting that Merriams or Websters is here to lead us to God will ignore the verses in the bible that DO explain grace....from God's perspective.

But people will grasp at anything to "get off the hook" for sins. That doesn't make it true.

 

[marks]

That is what it is called (“retributive justice”). In other words, my sin has created a debt that God must satisfy before God can forgive me (the debt must be paid). What matters is not my state (if I have changed) but the fulfillment of the requirement of justice.

Hi John,

My thinking is that both are important. You remind me of . . .

Colossians 2
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

This "handwriting" of ordinances, that's the "chierographon", literally handwriting, but used to describe a promissary note, an handwritten note of indebtedness. Once these debts were satisfied, "Tetelestai" was written on the note, paid in full.

Paul uses this in Philemon, where he tells his friend that if Onesimus had cost Philemon anything, he, Paul, would repay it, see, I've written with my own hand, he says.

Our chierographon is now blank. No debt. Paid in full.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No one on THIS forum that I can think of.
This does not mean they don't exist on other forums.

OK. So arguing that on this forum would be the proverbial Straw Man?

Much love!

 

[Episkopos]

That is what it is called (“retributive justice”). In other words, my sin has created a debt that God must satisfy before God can forgive me (the debt must be paid). What matters is not my state (if I have changed) but the fulfillment of the requirement of justice.

Calling it “divine justice” is not helpful as this is one thing the topic involves (the type of justice that is “divine justice”).

Scripture gives another account of the flood. Rather than God destroying man to satisfy the demands of divine justice, Scripture tells us that God destroyed the men because God was sorry that He had made an on earth and was grieved because they had become so wicked. This is a far cry from stating that divine justice required the total destruction of all living creatures because they were wicked.

Of all the attributes of God, why do you believe justice to be God’s central or defining attribute?

The reason I ask is had you chosen another attribute your theology would look differently.

For example, if love was God’s central or defining attribute the theology would be different. God would have sent Christ into the world to suffer as a ransom for mankind. Having undergone the human experience by being obedient even to death Jesus would have suffered all it is to be human yet without sinning himself. God could have then justified Christ by raising Him to life as the first of many to come (of those who would be “in Christ”). God would be both just and the justifier of sinners. God would be just because all judgment would be given to the Son and sin would be addressed as men would be saved not from but through death. God would be the justifier of sinners who believe because they would be raised to life in Christ.

Where you end depends on where you start. The question is why you choose to start with justice?

Too true. But your eloquence and truth will be lost on some here.

For God so judged the world????

But these can condemn others while being themselves immune from the same judgment of sinners through a self-righteousness religious status...of course! As in...who cares what happens to mankind...I'm only concerned with number 1. And...I know we're ok but I'm not so sure about you!

But are we not here to preserve the world? Or to gloat on how saved we are and then desire retribution on others?

 

[marks]

For example, if love was God’s central or defining attribute the theology would be different. God would have sent Christ into the world to suffer as a ransom for mankind. Having undergone the human experience by being obedient even to death Jesus would have suffered all it is to be human yet without sinning himself. God could have then justified Christ by raising Him to life as the first of many to come (of those who would be “in Christ”). God would be both just and the justifier of sinners. God would be just because all judgment would be given to the Son and sin would be addressed as men would be saved not from but through death. God would be the justifier of sinners who believe because they would be raised to life in Christ.

That's a good starting point. God is love!

Much love!

 

[Episkopos]

Sinning in the flesh is one thing but misrepresenting God is far worse. It's a deeper sin. Just look at how Jesus reacted to the religious status people of His day...compared with the sinners and prostitutes.

Will not carnal sinners get into the kingdom quicker than those who claim to be saved by a religious affiliation or dogmatism?

But people don't learn from history or even direct warnings. You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think!

 

[Helen]

Im not sure I understand very much. I never understand 'theories' much.

But if it is what I think that it is...then I think I agree with it!!

Now I must go back and read the whole thread , and see what its all about.

 

[John Caldwell]

Too true. But your eloquence and truth will be lost on some here.

For God so judged the world????

But these can condemn others while being themselves immune from the same judgment of sinners through a self-righteousness religious status...of course! As in...who cares what happens to mankind...I'm only concerned with number 1. And...I know we're ok but I'm not so sure about you!

But are we not here to preserve the world? Or to gloat on how saved we are and then desire retribution on others?

There are many theologies and theories out there. It seems the most attractive are always the ones that make no demands of us. Penal Substitution Theory definitely falles into this category of belief.

 

[Helen]

God wasn't so angry about sin that He killed His own Son in anger. God would never take out a person's sin on another person.

I am sorry, I am still way back at the beginning of this thread.

No, He would never take His anger out on another person...that is why He took it upon Himself...
'The Great Creator became our Saviour and all God's fullness dwelleth in Him. '

 

[marks]

Will not carnal sinners get into the kingdom quicker than those who claim to be saved by a religious affiliation or dogmatism?

All sin is carnal.

That only means "of the flesh". Religious pride is still carnal.

But people don't learn from history or even direct warnings.

And this does show itself true, does it not?

Much love!