Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[Per_Crucem]

If there is an actual substitution, then there is no need for confession. Otherwise we re-crucify Christ over and over again (In a similar fashion of Heb 6:4-8).

Incidentally that is why the only consistent position for someone who holds to penal substitution is the limited atonement of Reformed theology. It is also why all classical Arminians reject penal substitution.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Incidentally that is why the only consistent position for someone who holds to penal substitution is the limited atonement of Reformed theology. It is also why all classical Arminians reject penal substitution.

Not true friend

 

[Per_Crucem]

Not true friend

Which part?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Which part?

Arminians reject Penal as the ONLY method and the Calvinist few of it.

Look at SBC. They are classical Arminians and believe in the PSA. Pentecostals believe in PSA. Conservative Evangelical believe in PSA. E-Free believes in PSA. So what I mean. They just tweek it to not sound Calvinist.

 

[in_servitude]

For my sins, I’m pretty sure the justified punishment would be eternal separation from God. But, how could Jesus “take this punishment on in my place”? It would require a rupturing of the Trinity. I’m pretty certain that at no time has there ever been the situation that Jesus was separated from God, given that he IS God.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Arminians reject Penal as the ONLY method and the Calvinist few of it.

Look at SBC. They are classical Arminians and believe in the PSA. Pentecostals believe in PSA. Conservative Evangelical believe in PSA. E-Free believes in PSA. So what I mean. They just tweek it to not sound Calvinist.

Which is why I said classical Arminians. Despite the SBC love of free will, they’re influenced by Calvinism as well (the SBC was founded by Calvinists!).

 

[aidanbradypop]

Which is why I said classical Arminians. Despite the SBC love of free will, they’re influenced by Calvinism as well (the SBC was founded by Calvinists!).

I get what you are saying. Not sure you will find anyone that believes in PSA alone.

 

[cfauster]

Some wisdom on the subject (of how Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection save us) is at the Vatican web site, for example:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13043005&postcount=33
By the way, to everything in that post, this Lutheran says “Amen.”

A concise statement of the penal substitution theory of atonement, including some problems it raises, is at
biologos.org/blog/substitutionary-atonement-and-evolution-part-1

 

[ericc]

Jesus became our sin. He took all the sins of the world( past, present and future) and became to utlimate sacrifice on our behalf. He took on our death and then was resurrected to conquer that death for us. He took on our punishment that we deserve because you and I can never atone for such sins.

Since Christ took on our punishment and Rev 21:8 punish those who end up in the lake of fire then

1. either Christ did not take up the punishment for those not saved or
2. if Christ did bear the punishment for the condemned, then 2 persons suffered for the same sin which does not seem fair.
   3)It is also not fair for an innocent man to take punishment in our place regardless of whether we are able to atone for our sins or not.
3. It is also not equitable for us not to bear any punishment since Christ bore our punishment. A classic case of 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

A loving and merciful God must be a just God as well. I can’t see that balance in your proposed theory.

 

[KjetilK]

Since Christ took on our punishment and Rev 21:8 punish those who end up in the lake of fire then

1. either Christ did not take up the punishment for those not saved or
2. if Christ did bear the punishment for the condemned, then 2 persons suffered for the same sin which does not seem fair.
   3)It is also not fair for an innocent man to take punishment in our place regardless of whether we are able to atone for our sins or not.
3. It is also not equitable for us not to bear any punishment since Christ bore our punishment. A classic case of 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

A loving and merciful God must be a just God as well. I can’t see that balance in your proposed theory.

The main problem, as I’ve already pointed out in this thread, is that aidanbradypop’s idea is actually self-contradictory. If the punishment for our sins is eternal damnation, then Christ – to actually take on that punishment – had to be eternally damned. Being dead three days is not the same as being eternally damed. One cannot just say that ‘well, he was stronger.’ Because the point there is that he was punished so that we didn’t have to. But if he rose after three days he wasn’t punished eternally, and thus did not take on our punishment.

To point out the absurdity of this self-contradiction, note that aidanbradypop’s view actually entails that Christ underwent a three day long eternal death.

The point is that Christ didn’t take our punishment. Christ was not punished in our place. Christ atoned for our punishment by giving God satisfaction. And, as St. Anselm points out, punishment and satisfaction is not the same thing: aut poena aut satisfactio, “either punishment or satisfaction.” Not both.

 

[spedteacherita]

The main problem, as I’ve already pointed out in this thread, is that aidanbradypop’s idea is actually self-contradictory. If the punishment for our sins is eternal damnation, then Christ – to actually take on that punishment – had to be eternally damned. Being dead three days is not the same as being eternally damed. One cannot just say that ‘well, he was stronger.’ Because the point there is that he was punished so that we didn’t have to. But if he rose after three days he wasn’t punished eternally, and thus did not take on our punishment.

To point out the absurdity of this self-contradiction, note that aidanbradypop’s view actually entails that Christ underwent a three day long eternal death.

The point is that Christ didn’t take our punishment. Christ was not punished in our place. Christ atoned for our punishment by giving God satisfaction. And, as St. Anselm points out, punishment and satisfaction is not the same thing: aut poena aut satisfactio, “either punishment or satisfaction.” Not both.

So, instead of Christ taking our sins on the cross for us, He became the atoning sacrifice for our sins - am I understanding this right? Just as the Jews used to take and unblemished animal to be sacrificed to atone for their sins, Christ, our unblemished lamb was “sacrificed” as our atoning sacrifice.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I was taught or learned somewhere the same info that Dustin was presenting - that Christ took all of the world’s sin both before His birth and until He returns to gather us and take us home. Christ as the atoning sacrifice makes so much more sense to me than Christ taking all of our sins on the cross with Him.

If I’m still getting it wrong, help me to understand.

Thanks and God bless!

Rita

 

[SyCarl]

The main problem, as I’ve already pointed out in this thread, is that aidanbradypop’s idea is actually self-contradictory. If the punishment for our sins is eternal damnation, then Christ – to actually take on that punishment – had to be eternally damned. Being dead three days is not the same as being eternally damed. One cannot just say that ‘well, he was stronger.’ Because the point there is that he was punished so that we didn’t have to. But if he rose after three days he wasn’t punished eternally, and thus did not take on our punishment.

To point out the absurdity of this self-contradiction, note that aidanbradypop’s view actually entails that Christ underwent a three day long eternal death.

The point is that Christ didn’t take our punishment. Christ was not punished in our place. Christ atoned for our punishment by giving God satisfaction. And, as St. Anselm points out, punishment and satisfaction is not the same thing: aut poena aut satisfactio, “either punishment or satisfaction.” Not both.

It need not be contradictory if you look at the punishment as being infinite suffering. Our suffering would be infinite by virtue of its infinite duration. Christ’s suffering would not be infinite by virtue of duration but by the nature of the One who suffered. Christ as God is infinite so his suffering can be said to be infinite.

It need not be an either or proposition though. Christ’s atonement can include many components. However, to me it is not really important how Christ atoned but that He did it, whether we know or understand how.

 

[drac16]

Dr. James White presents this theory in his book ‘The God who Justifies’. That’s where I was first introduced to the penal substitutionary atonement theory. It’s a deep book and a fine piece of scholarship; I have to read through it again because there was some stuff that went over my head. I think you need to be careful when you, so forcefully, make God’s Kingdom analogous to a forensic system. God’s wrath is not altogether comparable to a human system.

I was just reading through the book of Joel earlier. The Lord said to the jews to return to Him with fasting and weeping and to render their garments. They were forgiven, but no blood atonement was necessary, nor required. Besides, they couldn’t have offered blood sacrifices because of the severe drought, causing the locusts to destroy all the jews’ crops and thereby killing their livestock. To me, the theory represents a misunderstanding of the Tanakh.

 

[KjetilK]

It need not be contradictory if you look at the punishment as being infinite suffering. Our suffering would be infinite by virtue of its infinite duration. Christ’s suffering would not be infinite by virtue of duration but by the nature of the One who suffered. Christ as God is infinite so his suffering can be said to be infinite.

So Christ suffered infinitively, as God, in his unchanging divinity?

It need not be an either or proposition though. Christ’s atonement can include many components. However, to me it is not really important how Christ atoned but that He did it, whether we know or understand how.

Yes, it is a mystery. But mystery and self-contradiction is not the same thing.