Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

[Mungo]

Yawn ...that is always the standard foolish response.

Response to what - A foolish statement?

 

[Mungo]

This assumes the legal debt was paid for all. But Christ only laid down his life for his sheep.

And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again (2Cor 5:15)

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.{1John 2:2)

 

[reformed1689]

And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again (2Cor 5:15)

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.{1John 2:2)

Out of context on both accounts.

Corinthians is speaking specifically of the elect. 1 John is speaking about both Jew and Gentile.

 

[John Caldwell]

OK. Why did it require His blood to purchase us?

Thank you for letting me pick your brain on this!

Much love!

No problem. It required His blood to purchase because this is the curse mankind was under. The wages of sin is death.

 

[John Caldwell]

I so wish other had the same heart as that...two thumbs up for that! :)



Im interested , can you mention here WHY?
These few people you say you've seen fall... I don't understand the why of a fall !!!! View attachment 7992

The few that I have seen (actually, this was when I held the Theory) claimed that Penal Substitution Theory was a flawed philosophy and projected this on Scripture. Those who left Penal Substitution Theory in favor of turning either "to Scripture" or adopting at least one position within the "classic view" insisted that retributive justice was a worldly idea and Scripture presents God as both capable and willing to forgive men based on true repentance.

 

[John Caldwell]

I agree that Jesus was our representative:

Hebrews teaches us that a high priest had to offer something:
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.(Heb 5:1)
"For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer."(Heb 8:3)
Neither tells us that he had to die.

Hebrews says
"he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption."(Heb 9:12)
But did Jesus have to offer his blood? I'm not sure.

I've seen a suggestion that an infinite God becoming man was a sufficient sacrifice.



I'd like to see some scripture with that to understand what you are referring to by "this curse".

When I was typing that response I was thinking of Galatians 3:13; Romans 5:12-21; and Romans 8:18.

 

[John Caldwell]

What I mean is that the Romans did not kill Jesus. They crucified Him, which meant to nail Him to the cross and hang him up to die. But the cross did not kill Jesus. He could have hung there without dying if that were what He wanted. But rather He released His own spirit.

Martyrs would allow themselves to be killed, but Jesus could not be killed. No one took His life from Him. He laid it down.

Peter's sermon in Acts 2 says that those men put Christ to death.

It is true that Jesus lay down His life, but this was not suicide.

 

[marks]

No problem. It required His blood to purchase because this is the curse mankind was under. The wages of sin is death.

So His blood instead of ours?

;)

Or what do you mean?

 

[marks]

I so wish other had the same heart as that...two thumbs up for that! :)

You also are a good example of that.

:)

 

[reformed1689]

No problem. It required His blood to purchase because this is the curse mankind was under. The wages of sin is death.

So he WAS paying a penalty.

 

[Mungo]

Out of context on both accounts.

Corinthians is speaking specifically of the elect. 1 John is speaking about both Jew and Gentile.

Not out of context.
Died for all does not mean died for some
Atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world does not mean for part of the world.

 

[Mungo]

When I was typing that response I was thinking of Galatians 3:13; Romans 5:12-21; and Romans 8:18.

Only Gal 3:13 mentions a curse so I will just deal with that.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree”

Now there are two different curses here.

The first is the “curse of the law”, a reference to Dt. 27:26 which is the final summing up curse on those who broke the law.

The second curse, the one that Paul says Jesus became, is the curse of hanging on a tree, a reference to Dt. 21:18-23 which is a curse of a man who dies a criminal’s death, and specifically in this passage about a rebellious son who was a “glutton and a drunkard”, something Jesus was charged with in Lk 7:34 & Mt 11:19.
It is therefore reasonable I think to paraphrase this as Christ redeemed us from all the curses of the law by dying a criminal’s death on a tree (i.e. on the cross), not that he took the curse of the law upon himself.

It was nothing to do with a curse of the bondage of sin, nothing to do with Adam's sin.
I believe in the "satisfaction" theory - see post #77.
perhaps I will come back to that tomorrow in more detail.

 

[reformed1689]

Not out of context.
Died for all does not mean died for some
Atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world does not mean for part of the world.

During the world series the commentator said "The eyes of the WHOLE WORLD are on this moment." Was literally every person in the world watching the series?

 

[John Caldwell]

So His blood instead of ours?

;)

Or what do you mean?

LOL.... No.

His life for us (not instead of us). A "purchase" or "redemption".

I had a friend who was killed in Bosnia. He died for his country, not instead of his country.

 

[John Caldwell]

Only Gal 3:13 mentions a curse so I will just deal with that.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree”

Now there are two different curses here.

The first is the “curse of the law”, a reference to Dt. 27:26 which is the final summing up curse on those who broke the law.

The second curse, the one that Paul says Jesus became, is the curse of hanging on a tree, a reference to Dt. 21:18-23 which is a curse of a man who dies a criminal’s death, and specifically in this passage about a rebellious son who was a “glutton and a drunkard”, something Jesus was charged with in Lk 7:34 & Mt 11:19.
It is therefore reasonable I think to paraphrase this as Christ redeemed us from all the curses of the law by dying a criminal’s death on a tree (i.e. on the cross), not that he took the curse of the law upon himself.

It was nothing to do with a curse of the bondage of sin, nothing to do with Adam's sin.
I believe in the "satisfaction" theory - see post #77.
perhaps I will come back to that tomorrow in more detail.

Generally when I refer to being under a "curse" what I mean is under the bondage of sin and death.

 

[John Caldwell]

So he WAS paying a penalty.

He was suffering the consequences of sin, the "penalty" of being human. Not a punishment.

A penalty is a "disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action". The origin of "penalty" is "pain". It does not mean punishment.

 

[marks]

LOL.... No.

His life for us (not instead of us). A "purchase" or "redemption".

I had a friend who was killed in Bosnia. He died for his country, not instead of his country.

OK, that's a good example. But wasn't your friend, I sorry he died, wasn't he standing between his country and those who would destroy it? So that in allowing himself to be killed by putting himself in harm's way, he was trying to spare his country being killed, as it were?

You could say the police who protect us die for us, but not instead of us, but isn't the upshot that save for their protection, I'd be the one who was dead?

 

[marks]

He was suffering the consequences of sin, the "penalty" of being human. Not a punishment.

A penalty is a "disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action". The origin of "penalty" is "pain". It does not mean punishment.

Just being human doesn't mean you die. Adam was human, but not subject to death until he sinned.

 

[reformed1689]

He was suffering the consequences of sin, the "penalty" of being human. Not a punishment.

A penalty is a "disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action". The origin of "penalty" is "pain". It does not mean punishment.

You might want to look up the definition of punishment...

 

[John Caldwell]

OK, that's a good example. But wasn't your friend, I sorry he died, wasn't he standing between his country and those who would destroy it? So that in allowing himself to be killed by putting himself in harm's way, he was trying to spare his country being killed, as it were?

You could say the police who protect us die for us, but not instead of us, but isn't the upshot that save for their protection, I'd be the one who was dead?

I guess in a way you could say my friend was representing his country.

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".