Penal Substitution

[Turgonian]

I know this discussion has been around before, but is Penal Substitution true? If so, why? If not, why not? Scriptural arguments please.

[wonders4oyarsa]

Penal substitution is the notion that Jesus endured, in his death on the cross, the punishment of sin, and in so doing turned the wrath of God on himself rather than his people. The clearest scriptural statement of penal substitution proably comes out of the suffering servant passage in Isaiah - where the servant is known to be stricken, smitten, and afflicted and the people think he's being punished by God. And yet he is actually enduring the punishment on behalf of the people.

My view would be that this is indeed a true aspect of what Christ's death accomplished, but that it is not necessarily the only thing or even the primary aspect of the atonement. The reason I think this is that baptism is a symbolic participation in the death of Christ, and Paul talks about being united with him in his death. So, though his death did turn away the wrath of God, there is a very strong aspect of his death that we are indeed called to share as Christians.

[Whipartist]

PS is not exegetically grounded. It's irretrivably beyond the reach of the Biblical text.

[B21C9L15]

I know this discussion has been around before, but is Penal Substitution true? If so, why? If not, why not? Scriptural arguments please.

There is no justness that a lamb should suffer in behalf of israelites' sins. Much more there is no justness that any man shold suffer in behalf of the elects' sins. But in order for God to show His true omnipotence, sovereignty, or power, etc., and that He is the one creating the very church(the elect) which He envisioned in the law of Moses, He showed us the fulfillment of his creating the church through the fulfilling the offering of the lamb through Christ's sufferring.

The law of Moses is actually what God does of the Church, not what we can do to be the church: something that is revealed when Christ came.

BCL

[Nang]

PS is not exegetically grounded. It's irretrivably beyond the reach of the Biblical text.

Of course, it is biblically grounded. The concept is just beyond ~your~ reach.



Nang

[Whipartist]

Of course, it is biblically grounded. The concept is just beyond ~your~ reach.



Nang

Sustain your statement with valid arguments instead of invalid insults Nang.

[wonders4oyarsa]

Well, whipartist - your statement was rather inflammatory without any real argument to back it up as well. Why don't you talk about what you think the nature of the atonement is, and why penal substitution doesn't fit according to scripture?

[TheAnalogman]

Well, whipartist - your statement was rather inflammatory without any real argument to back it up as well.

Or maybe, just maybe, Whipartist has seen this type of posting from Nang ~1000 times like many of us have. When did you join TWEB??

[wonders4oyarsa]

Umm....a long time ago.... as is evident by my 12 posts....

Fair enough - I shouldn't stick my head in a fight that's not mine. My point was that Turgonian asked a question which is not really being answered.

[TheAnalogman]

I know this discussion has been around before, but is Penal Substitution true? If so, why? If not, why not? Scriptural arguments please.

Ok, to get this thread rolling, I'll throw out a few ideas:

Matthew 18:23-27
"For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.' And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt."

Nothing remotely Penal there...

Consider the parable of the Prodigal son...nothing penal there either.

...

[Nang]

Ok, to get this thread rolling, I'll throw out a few ideas:

Matthew 18:23-27
"For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.' And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt."

Nothing remotely Penal there...

Consider the parable of the Prodigal son...nothing penal there either.

...

You're kidding, right? You are going to attempt to disprove Christ's substitutional atonement, by quoting parables?

Penal Substitution is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who God sent into the world, to vicariously suffer death on behalf of souls chosen by God to inherit glory and everlasting life.

Because of the fall of Adam, no man could merit this inheritance, for no man is able to completely keep the Holy Law of God. Only one Man, could and did, the Man Jesus Christ.

It is through His perfect obedience that sinners are imputed with righteousness. And sinners are made worthy to receive this imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, only by having their sins remitted and removed. And their sins were remitted and removed by Jesus Christ suffering the sentence of death legally imposed by God upon all who fail to keep His Law.

Jesus Christ did for His people, what those people could never have done for themselves, for:

"There is none who understands; there is none who seek after God. They have all turned aside; thety have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no not one." Romans 3:11&12

This is the sinful condition of all the world, declared guilty before God. (Romans 3:19) No man seeks God, because no man is willing or able to seek God, due to being enslaved to sin, death, and the devil.

If Christ had not substituted Himself for some, all humankind would have perished in their sins. Christ became the curse of God on the cross, to release His people from the curse of death:

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us . . ." Galatians 3:13

That is Penal (legal, forensic) Substitution in a nutshell, and the entire Bible upholds this doctrine.

However, natural/carnal men consider this Gospel message to be foolishness, for this is a spiritual and Godly truth that requires the presence and teaching of the Holy Spirit and thus "the mind of Christ" to comprehend. (I Cor. 2:14-16, John 3:3)

Nang

[TheAnalogman]

Anybody? This could be a good discussion

[Whipartist]

Well, whipartist - your statement was rather inflammatory without any real argument to back it up as well. Why don't you talk about what you think the nature of the atonement is, and why penal substitution doesn't fit according to scripture?

My point was that Turgonian asked a question which is not really being answered.

Welcome to Tweb.

Penal Substitution is a theory of the atonement which is beyond the text of Scripture. I think that's a pretty reasonable and obvious statement but I know not all see it that way.

I think a discussion on whether PS is unbiblical starts there. Yes it's unbiblical because the Bible doesn't teach it at all.

Of course Nang comes back and claims that such and such verse teaches PS. But they don't. They say what they say, nothing more. PS actually brings with it a whole system of retributive justice which is groundless and unbiblical. Nobody questions that Jesus was stricken for our sins, was made a curse, and identified with sin. That's Biblical, and that's not Penal Substitution. Penal Substitution is significantly beyond this.

[RanRan]

Penal Substitution is a theory of the atonement which is beyond the text of Scripture. I think that's a pretty reasonable and obvious statement but I know not all see it that way.

I think a discussion on whether PS is unbiblical starts there. Yes it's unbiblical because the Bible doesn't teach it at all.

Nang is correct. You are so far removed from propitiating sacrifices that you feel superior to such 'brutal practises'. But 'without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.' The Aztecs understood this and were converted overnight. Propitiation is the heart of the Gospel, i.e. penal substitution. If PE is removed, there is no Gospel, all that's left is men inserting themselves into the atonement of God, which is 'religion' at its worst.

[TheAnalogman]

Nang is correct.

Yeah, sure.

But 'without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.'

Yep, that's true. BUT, there is no mention or implication of Penal Substitution in that text. You're reading it into the text, RanRan.

The Aztecs understood this and were converted overnight.

Really? All of them? Even with bad Theology??

Propitiation is the heart of the Gospel, i.e. penal substitution.

Not the same thing, you're inventing "daffynitions" again.

If PE is removed, there is no Gospel, all that's left is men inserting themselves into the atonement of God, which is 'religion' at its worst.

God didn't need to change, RanRan. People did.