Penal Substitution ... is it biblical?

Michael Collum said:

So stating that the Father is abusive, and Jesus is covering for Him means they are not one.

Click to expand...

That could mean a lot of things, I suppose. - lol
(certainly not what I am saying)

Saint Steven said:

That could mean a lot of things, I suppose. - lol
(certainly not what I am saying)

Click to expand...

I think subconsciously I've been contemplating which doctrines are responsible for making the Trinity make less sense to people.

This may be one of them since it introduces a contradiction on an intuitive level.

Saint Steven said:

That wouldn't be a problem for me. I don't believe in a forever burning hell.

Click to expand...

That's what Jesus taught, a forever burning hell
That's where people who aren't written in the book of life went at the final judgement
a forever burning hell.
and ultimately, even annihilationism is no comfort, for a mother who'd never ever meet her child.
Are you familiar with 2 Samuel 12, where David was fasting and praying and just agonizing while his young son was dying... but when the son actually died, he got up, and he was at peace with it.
Why?
Because he knew he'd see his son again.

I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Click to expand...

For a non believer, there is no consolation for them, they grieve without hope, mourning the loss of someone they love, forever
Annihilationism or hell, you still lose them forever.
But David knew he'd see his son again, and that is why I can say with confidence that a very young child taken from this earth that young, or maybe even never taking a breath, will be seen again in heaven, because ultimately WE must become like the little children, innocent, and with their faith, to enter the kingdom.
Matthew 18:1-4

1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Click to expand...

Michael Collum said:

I think subconsciously I've been contemplating which doctrines are responsible for making the Trinity make less sense to people.

This may be one of them since it introduces a contradiction on an intuitive level.

Click to expand...

If understanding the Trinity is a salvation issue, we're all in trouble. - lol

Jamdoc said:

That's what Jesus taught, a forever burning hell
That's where people who aren't written in the book of life went at the final judgement
a forever burning hell.
and ultimately, even annihilationism is no comfort, for a mother who'd never ever meet her child.
Are you familiar with 2 Samuel 12, where David was fasting and praying and just agonizing while his young son was dying... but when the son actually died, he got up, and he was at peace with it.
Why?
Because he knew he'd see his son again.

Click to expand...

There is biblical support for Damnationism. (a forever burning hell)
But I am not aware of any biblical support for child innocence in the context of Damnationism.

And actually, Damnationism falls apart in all these conditional issues. Are you claiming that everyone's name is written in the Book of Life before it is blotted out at the age of accountability?

Jamdoc said:

For a non believer, there is no consolation for them, they grieve without hope, mourning the loss of someone they love, forever
Annihilationism or hell, you still lose them forever.
But David knew he'd see his son again, and that is why I can say with confidence that a very young child taken from this earth that young, or maybe even never taking a breath, will be seen again in heaven, because ultimately WE must become like the little children, innocent, and with their faith, to enter the kingdom.
Matthew 18:1-4

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that Damnationists are revolted at the idea that God would throw an "innocent" child into a forever burning hell, but have no revulsion of the countless billions of adults who never so much as heard the name of Jesus being thrown there.

Or they add another conditional issue for that. Once again causing Damnationism to crumble.

Saint Steven said:

I find it interesting that Damnationists are revolted at the idea that God would throw an "innocent" child into a forever burning hell, but have no revulsion of the countless billions of adults who never so much as heard the name of Jesus being thrown there.

Or they add another conditional issue for that. Once again causing Damnationism to crumble.

Click to expand...

You don't go to hell for not hearing about Jesus.
You go to hell for knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing wrong.
Romans 1 addresses this

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Click to expand...

Everyone has a conscience that develops at some point in childhood. They KNOW it is wrong to lie, they KNOW it is wrong to steal, they KNOW it is wrong to hurt other people or kill other people. That's something that develops in us after we're a few years old, once what psychologists call "theory of mind" develops in a child. Before that... a child really does not understand right and wrong. A baby has no concept that they are stealing if they take something without permission. They see they take because they literally do not understand that you are another person that exists and has their own feelings much less that you own anything and it's not theirs to take.
The first sin of disobedience was essentially, Adam and Eve learning the difference between right and wrong. Had they remained ignorant to that, God let everything else be legal, because they didn't know any better. You walk around naked and God would call that a sin and tell you you should be ashamed of yourself. Adam and Eve walking around naked... no problem. They don't know any better.
Very young children and babies funny enough, have the same response to being naked. As a baby or a toddler.. they.. really see nothing wrong with running around naked. They get a little older, suddenly the shame sets in, now they know it's wrong to be naked...
Maybe that's a rough guideline of about when any age of accountability is. But generally as soon as they can understand the gospel they should be taught it.

childeye 2 said:

What exactly is bondage under the law? Yeah the term 'ransom' definitely brings thoughts to mind of captives being set free through a payment to a captor. You said that God could simply take the power of death away from Satan, but how would that play out in the minds of the other angels? It might look like God breaking His own rules.

Scripture says there's a dragon waiting to devour the child destined to be King and we can see Satan entering Judas to betray Jesus. In the big picture I believe Satan administered the law and his crucifying Jesus according to the law was his undoing even as he condemned someone greater than himself..

Click to expand...

You asked: “What exactly is bondage under the law?”

It is repeatedly said: “There is no salvation (being set free to enter the Kingdom) with the law of Moses” and we can understand this. This does not mean people before Christianity were not saved, they just were not saved by the Law. Salvation through following the Law was saving one’s self, by perfect obedience, which cannot be done. The law really showed the need for big time help and the requirement for another way to be saved. By seeking another way, the individual (Jew) comes to realize God’s great Love (ability to forgive) and thus commit to a reliance on God’s Love and showing the commitment through repentance. The prophets and John the Baptist taught this, but it required a humbling acceptance and lots of trust (faith) to believe and rely on such great Love. It would leave the former sinner unconvinced due in part to being left undisciplined for his/her sins.

I did not address: “God taking to power of death away from satan”, but God having total power over satan and God being able to take anything from satan. The treat/fear/reality of death hung over everyone’s head before the cross, since they were awaiting the Messiah and sure would not want to die before His arrival and they were not sure of salvation, even knowing to some degree God’s Love, for satan kept tempting them and worrying their minds.

What is being played out in front of the angels is, God Loving Power for humans.

What “rule” do you see God “breaking”?

I think you are giving way significance to satan, but satan is extremely powerful and we do tend to underestimate him.

In Peter’s very strong Christ crucified sermon in Acts 2, he does not blame satan or talk about satan like he was some key player.

What do you mean by: “Satan administered the law”?

You say: “his crucifying Jesus according to the law”, there is no Law by which Christ was justly crucified, Christ was totally innocent.

What was Christ being “condemned” for?

eleos1954 said:

The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty for mankind's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it.

Questions ... and pose some questions of your own as well.

It is said .... the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus who committed no sin ... who was completely innocent .... is that justice?

Was salvation made possible through justice or through Love?

As always please provide scripture.

Click to expand...

Salvation was made possible through Love. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:16

If Jesus' suffering and death were justice He would have suffered for His own sins. But He committed no sin as you pointed out. Therefore He was not punished for His own sins, He was punished for our sins. He lovingly took our punishment for our sins so that we may receive forgiveness for our sins and be reconciled to God.

"For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." 2Corinthians 5:21

[

Saint Steven said:

If understanding the Trinity is a salvation issue, we're all in trouble. - lol

Click to expand...

I'd agree, but experiencing the reality of the trinity in our every day lives makes the witness easier.

Michael Collum said:

I'd agree, but experiencing the reality of the trinity in our every day lives makes the witness easier.

Click to expand...

What does it mean to experience the reality of the trinity in our every day lives?

Jamdoc said:

You walk around naked and God would call that a sin and tell you you should be ashamed of yourself. Adam and Eve walking around naked... no problem. They don't know any better.

Click to expand...

Adam said they hid because they were naked.
God asked, "Who told you that your were naked?" (from memory)
Obviously it wasn't God that told them they were naked. Who then?

Devil Talkin'

Saint Steven said:

Adam said they hid because they were naked.
God asked, "Who told you that your were naked?" (from memory)
Obviously it was God that told them they were naked. Who then?

Devil Talkin'

Click to expand...

uh, it says right in Genesis 3:7 that when they ate the fruit and knew good and evil they became aware of their own nakedness. Nobody pointed it out to them. They became self conscious and immediately felt ashamed.
Had they not sinned, there'd be no shame.
If they'd continued to have generations of people.. we'd all be naked, and see nothing wrong with that, that's just how God made us. Of course we won't go back to that even in eternity because now we know the difference.

Jamdoc said:

uh, it says right in Genesis 3:7 that when they ate the fruit and knew good and evil they became aware of their own nakedness. Nobody pointed it out to them. They became self conscious and immediately felt ashamed.
Had they not sinned, there'd be no shame.
If they'd continued to have generations of people.. we'd all be naked, and see nothing wrong with that, that's just how God made us. Of course we won't go back to that even in eternity because now we know the difference.

Click to expand...

So you think we are better off naked and ashamed than naked and unashamed?

God asked Adam who told him they were naked. And look at this discussion with Cain.

Genesis 4:6-7
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

Saint Steven said:

So you think we are better off naked and ashamed than naked and unashamed?

God asked Adam who told him they were naked. And look at this discussion with Cain.

Genesis 4:6-7
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

Click to expand...

Ultimately since everything in history has been for our redemptive good, it was better for us to learn good and evil and be redeemed from evil, than to be in ignorance forever. That has been a part of God's plan.
Satan meant it for evil, God meant it for good.

Jamdoc said:

... everything in history has been for our redemptive good...

Click to expand...

Hold that thought.

How could a forever burning hell be for our redemptive good?

bling said:

You asked: “What exactly is bondage under the law?”

It is repeatedly said: “There is no salvation (being set free to enter the Kingdom) with the law of Moses” and we can understand this. This does not mean people before Christianity were not saved, they just were not saved by the Law. Salvation through following the Law was saving one’s self, by perfect obedience, which cannot be done. The law really showed the need for big time help and the requirement for another way to be saved. By seeking another way, the individual (Jew) comes to realize God’s great Love (ability to forgive) and thus commit to a reliance on God’s Love and showing the commitment through repentance. The prophets and John the Baptist taught this, but it required a humbling acceptance and lots of trust (faith) to believe and rely on such great Love. It would leave the former sinner unconvinced due in part to being left undisciplined for his/her sins.

Click to expand...

The question posed concerning what is bondage under the law was meant to be rhetorical. My intention was to create a context for drawing some similarities to bondage under the law, captives, prison/prisoners, and death (where Jesus rose from when he was resurrected).

However I'm glad you answered the question and for what it's worth, I find it to be articulated well as pertains to the weakness of the law due to weakness of the flesh. The last sentence above reminds me of the renewing of the mind and the uncertainty concerning where to draw the line between accuse and excuse as pertains to one's conscience. It appears to me that the person you describe as a "former sinner" would be viewing 'discipline' from coming out of an Old Covenant perspective of 'penalty'.

I did not address: “God taking to power of death away from satan”, but God having total power over satan and God being able to take anything from satan. The threat/fear/reality of death hung over everyone’s head before the cross, since they were awaiting the Messiah and sure would not want to die before His arrival and they were not sure of salvation, even knowing to some degree God’s Love, for satan kept tempting them and worrying their minds.

Click to expand...

When applying what the term 'eternal' implies, surely God is the power of life which is greater than the power of death. In linguistics the difference is conclusive when recognizing that that which is eternal must exist as such, wherefore death must usurp from life and not the other way around.

What is being played out in front of the angels is, God Loving Power for humans.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting take I would not disagree with. However, I would say that God's loving Character and Spirit is being revealed in a temporal existence of events, where it can be learned to be valued through the real experience of the result of being separated from Him in various ways and degrees. To your point about what the angels are witnessing, I believe vanity is a recurring problem for any intelligent creature as the creature tends to take God's Spirit for granted. I believe the statement that those who are forgiven much love the Master more than those who are forgiven little would support this view.

What “rule” do you see God “breaking”?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understood my statement. I believe God would not break his own rules which is why the power of death must be taken from Satan through a transparently justified reason rather than for what could otherwise appear as a capricious or unilateral undertaking. To rephrase, if there was no substitutional death by an unblemished lamb, then the requirements of the law according to the Old Covenant could not be fulfilled.

I think you are giving way significance to satan, but satan is extremely powerful and we do tend to underestimate him.

Click to expand...

I believe I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure. I believe you're speaking to what measure of responsibility should be appointed to all individuals involved including the significance of Satan's role in the matter of worldly events.

The thing is I am certain that Jesus expressly came to defeat the works of the devil, which to me implies that the course of corruption and death begins with the devil. And I am therefore also of the belief, that the devil's works will come to an end directly by what was accomplished at the cross. He is called the Father of lies, a deceiver of nations. I also know the lies that were sown from the beginning exist in this world like a poison doing it's work to undermine what could be deemed as the Light of the soul. I see Satan as the enemy of God, and also the opponent in my own mind and life.

The apostle said, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”... With this in mind, it would be foolish to discount the cunning or intelligence of such a creature. Having said that, it is my interest to understand the factors that are the cause of Lucifer's fall, the purpose meant to be achieved by manipulating others through deception, the mechanics of how the deception works, and to know the Truth that these lies would exist to subtly subvert. All in all since it is my intention to not be beguiled, the knowledge of how to detect and expose lies is important to me.

In Peter’s very strong Christ crucified sermon in Acts 2, he does not blame satan or talk about satan like he was some key player.

Click to expand...

This is true. I believe Peter was led by the Holy Spirit to speak words which would convict the people in their hearts in that what they had done in rejecting the Christ was wrong. I don't see why he would speak about Satan.

What do you mean by: “Satan administered the law”?

Click to expand...

To be clear I said, "In the big picture I believe Satan administered the law"... As to the reasons why I believe that, I would need to write somewhat extensively about many scriptures. Suffice it to say that scripture indicates that the law was ordained by angels and I believe the law ended up being a means to destroy the devil's works according to his own doing, through the foreknowledge of God.

For one example, these scriptures are indicative of spiritual powers of darkness that we as believers grapple with in a spiritual battle, and I note that the end of bondage under the law is also directly related to the spoiling (disarming) of the principalities and powers whom Jesus triumphed over.
Ephesians 6:12
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Colossians 2:14-15
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; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

You say: “his crucifying Jesus according to the law”, there is no Law by which Christ was justly crucified, Christ was totally innocent.

Click to expand...

Yes that was not well said on my part. I meant that his blood was shed in fulfillment of sacrificial requirements according to the law. The crucifixion was the horrific and unjust means by which it was shed, but the sacrifice of the innocent unblemished lamb of God was according to the law.

What was Christ being “condemned” for?

Click to expand...

Jesus was "condemned" for many 'accused' things. Personally I'd say he was condemned for speaking the truth in a wicked world.

Saint Steven said:

Hold that thought.

How could a forever burning hell be for our redemptive good?

Click to expand...

Would people want to be redeemed if there wasn't one or would they be content to live in sin?

eleos1954 said:

The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty for mankind's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it.

Questions ... and pose some questions of your own as well.

It is said .... the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus who committed no sin ... who was completely innocent .... is that justice?

Was salvation made possible through justice or through Love?

As always please provide scripture.

Click to expand...

It's not penal substitution.

Adam = mankind. Jesus = mankind:

For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Cor 15:21-22

Adam = mankind. Mankind had to bear the penalty for mankind's sin, but this would only have resulted in eternal separation from God, because sin cannot cleanse sin, nor would sinful mankind rise again from the dead after suffering the penalty for his sin.

The Word of God became a man in order to bear the sins of mankind: Death had come to mankind through mankind (Adam), and all mankind sinned.

And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living soul," the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit. 1 Cor 15:45

The penalty for mankind's sin was being poured out upon mankind in the body of a man called Jesus: He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that dying to sins, we might live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed. 1 Pet 2:24

The Word of God became mankind in order to bear the sins of mankind: Whereas God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and putting the word of reconciliation in us. 2 Cor 5:19

The substitution lies in the fact that following the fall of Adam, Jesus was the only man ever to have lived who was without sin: For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit. 1 Pet 3:18.

We are all born into Adam who sinned. We all need to be born by the Spirit who is the Father of the man called Jesus:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. John 3:16-17.

He is the last Adam, the Son of Man, meaning He represents mankind before God, just as the first Adam does: Son of God, Son of Man. Fully God, Fully Man. Mankind's sin has been paid for by mankind. It's not "penal substitution".

Why did God do this? BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY WAY GOD COULD SAVE MANKIND. Sinful man could not die for his own sins and then rise again. Jesus was without sin.