Penal Substitution ... is it biblical?

Jamdoc said:

I cleared that up both times.
First, that children are not in sin until they know the difference between good and evil. They don't have sin, so they go to heaven.
Matthew 18 and 19 both have examples, and I quoted the specific scriptures in this thread earlier.
2 Samuel 12 same thing.

Second, those people who haven't heard the gospel, yeah it's unfortunate but they are still punished for their sin, not because they didn't believe on Jesus, believing on Jesus is the way out of being condemned for the sins you committed. It's a lifeline, but every one after they can learn between right and wrong does something stupid to deserve drowning. You don't blame the captain of the ship for not throwing a lifeline to a person if they drowned especially if they were doing something stupid like dancing and running around next to the edge of the deck. I believe that the punishment for those who never heard the gospel won't be as bad as for those who did and rejected it Luke 12:47-48

Click to expand...

If the Elect were predestined for salvation, then everyone else was predestined for damnation. Right?

Saint Steven said:

If the Elect were predestined for salvation, then everyone else was predestined for damnation. Right?

Click to expand...

it's less predestined and more foreknew.

Jamdoc said:

it's less predestined and more foreknew.

Click to expand...

That would be a great comfort to the one burning forever with no hope of escape and no say in the matter.

childeye 2 said:

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).

Click to expand...

I do want to thank you for getting back to me quickly.

I really would Love to understand better atonement and the atonement sacrifice. I have read over 12 theories and talking or emailed hundreds of individuals on the topic. All they have are theories with lots of inconsistencies, contradictions and lacking answers. I think we should be able to figure it out with the right motives and the indwelling wisdom of the Holy Spirit. This is a huge topic, but I have gone deep into it, so hopefully you can help me further.

I spend weeks on this topic teaching adults with questions mainly, but since we are not in a face to face discussion, I will mostly just make statement, but please question them and we can discuss.

We should keep the resurrection separate from the atonement sacrifice. The children are being held back, under bondage, captured, dead (by Christ’s definition), kidnapped, and not with their Father.

childeye 2 said:

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'.

Click to expand...

I am glade you brought up the idea of “penalty”.

“penalty” conveys the idea of punishment, but punishment of children is better translated disciplining.

Dobson would say: “You should never punish your child, but you must Lovingly discipline your child.” Unfortunately, many Bible translators use the word “punishment” for negative disciplining most of the time.

Atonement is much more then the sacrifice itself, it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process. The Jews at Christ’s time would have had firsthand knowledge of atonement through personal sin offerings. These sin offerings were for very minor sins (unintentional sins almost accidental sins). All the elements and the full process is there, but unintentional sins are so much less grievous then bold rebellious disobedience directly against God, it is hard to go from one to the other, but it seems to very related.

I have never read any theory of Atonement using Lev. 5, but it is a wonderful example:

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

Lev. 5 addresses sins you know you committed while Lev. 16 addresses sins you are not even sure you committed so it should be a better fit.

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least in Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time, at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people here (nothing really to help God out) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not a shepherd, yet for hours he waits in line to get to the priest, while the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so the hardship is somewhat equal. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

childeye 2 said:

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.
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.

Click to expand...

OK, this gets into another huge topic “death”.

All mature adults commit a spiritual type death when they sin and this is true before and after the cross and it is true of the saved and not saved.

Unless the Lord comes before their death, everyone will physically die.

There is a second death that those who go to hell experience, but is that what is being addressed with Christ’s death?

Can we agree that Christ did not experience a spiritual death by sinning and Christ did experience a physical death on the cross?

What scripture support is there for Christ experiencing the second death and this being what is talked about?

Is physical death for a Christian bad in and of itself?

Christ removed the finality of physical death by: removing the sting of death, providing eternal life, assurance through the indwelling Holy Spirit of salvation/life, and making it all very believable, so is that what was concurred, since we all still die?

Death is the result of sin entering the world and it is still happening, so it was not replaced by Christ going to the cross and dying.

Is spiritual and/or physical death the punishment for unforgiven sins or is it hell?

childeye 2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree humans on earth are up against powerful awful spiritual beings and must have the power of Spiritual beings (the indwelling Holy Spirit) to defeat these beings and the indwelling Holy Spirit came after the cross. First and foremost, we cannot blame demons for our sins, but must blame ourselves for allowing them in and not seeking help from the Spirit.

When we say something like: “Christ defeated satan with the cross”, what do we really mean since satan is still around, roaming the earth like a lion?

I do see satan serving a purpose in that like he was with Eve, he tempts people to do what they already want to do (thus they are already sinning), to provide an excuse (with a lie) for doing it outwardly. This shows us how weak we are, how much help we need, humiliates us righteously, and hopefully turns us to God or turns us back to God.

childeye 2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Eph. 6:12 is talking about Christians in the first century, so we are still warring against them and the war is not over.

Paul in Col. 2:14-15 might be referring to the earthly powers of the leaders in the temple, since he is talking doing it openly.

childeye 2 said:

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

Click to expand...

You might be looking at it backwards: Jesus is not trying to be like what was done under the Law, but all these sacrifices are just a shadow of what Christ was to do on the cross.

We need to start with the reality, of what went on with the cross and look back to see how these old sacrifices were but a shadow of His sacrifice.

Blood was used to cleans most things outwardly and make them outwardly holy.

A bag of flour could be the sacrifice itself without blood, but the blood was used to cleans everything.

It was not only the blood representing life, but the whole torture, humiliation and cruel murder of Christ.

Satan’s children who were leaders in the temple I do not feel were so “condemning” because of the words He spoke since John the Baptist spoke strong words against them and they did not seem to want to kill John the Baptist. They had to fight the idea in their own minds that Jesus was the Messiah and it was a really hard fight, since Jesus was not the Messiah they wanted. The religious leaders might be said to accuse Jesus of not being the Messiah they wanted?

The religious leaders were concerned about Jesus (the real Messiah) causing riots in the city and the Romans coming in and taking their power away and they might also even kick them out of the temple. It has to do with giving up their way of life, pride, jealousy, selfishness, glory, and of course money.

Saint Steven said:

That would be a great comfort to the one burning forever with no hope of escape and no say in the matter.

Click to expand...

It's not meant to be a comfort since they'd be there by their own actions.

eleos1954 said:

the word forsaken is translated abandoned .... and yes .... Jesus did experience separation from the Father .... sacrifice .... He GAVE life for life. Jesus willingly laid down His life for us. Yes indeed paid our sin debt (wages for sin is death).

He GAVE His life up so that we can (through Him) have life.

Jesus referred to sin as a deadly disease that needed to be healed (by His stripes you are healed), not a crime that needed to be sentenced. The cross is the boundless and free love of God that heals our natures and triumphs over our sin and death.

His death on the cross was about Love .... not appeasing a angry God.

His law when kept perfectly (as Jesus did) produces love. Love towards God ... Love towards our fellow man.

It's not about legalities ..... it's about love.

Click to expand...

Sure but it was more than the physical death at men's hands. Jesus referred to a cup that the Father had given him to drink. That cup, is a symbol used throughout the bible in prophetic scripture, a cup of wine that represents the wrath off God. Jesus took the cup of the wrath of God that we each deserve, and drank it Himself.

Jamdoc said:

It's not meant to be a comfort since they'd be there by their own actions.

Click to expand...

If you knew your neighbor was torturing people in his basement, would you brag about his good character?

Saint Steven said:

If you knew your neighbor was torturing people in his basement, would you brag about his good character?

Click to expand...

God isn't your neighbor. God is doing something justified in punishment If you have issues with how God does punishment you'd have to take it up with Him.

Jamdoc said:

God isn't your neighbor. God is doing something justified in punishment If you have issues with how God does punishment you'd have to take it up with Him.

Click to expand...

This is the disconnect I see all the time.
Damnationists view their loving heavenly Father as an angry volcano god. And shrug it off.

Saint Steven said: ↑
If you knew your neighbor was torturing people in his basement, would you brag about his good character?

Saint Steven said:

This is the disconnect I see all the time.
Damnationists view their loving heavenly Father as an angry volcano god. And shrug it off.

Saint Steven said: ↑
If you knew your neighbor was torturing people in his basement, would you brag about his good character?

Click to expand...

We don't have the authority to disagree with Him. That is what the bible teaches so that is what I believe.

Jamdoc said:

We don't have the authority to disagree with Him. That is what the bible teaches so that is what I believe.

Click to expand...

So if an English translation of the Bible is slandering God, you wouldn't question it?
Why wouldn't you stand up for God and defend his honor?

What sort of father would discipline his children by locking them in an oven and then burning the house down? Doesn't that seem severe to you?

Gospel in Chairs: A Beautiful Gospel - Brad Jersak

Brad Jersak's 2015 version of the Gospel in Chairs, originally composed by Fr. Anthony Carbo and borrowed by others like Steve Robinson and Brian Zahnd (who retitled it 'The Beautiful Gospel').

Saint Steven said:

So if an English translation of the Bible is slandering God, you wouldn't question it?
Why wouldn't you stand up for God and defend his honor?

What sort of father would discipline his children by locking them in an oven and then burning the house down? Doesn't that seem severe to you?

Click to expand...

I trust that the bible is the word of God and that God has preserved the meaning of the books. Otherwise, we can't have faith in anything else. if we can't trust that the bible is the word of God, how can you trust any of the promises in it?

Jamdoc said:

I trust that the bible is the word of God and that God has preserved the meaning of the books. Otherwise, we can't have faith in anything else. if we can't trust that the bible is the word of God, how can you trust any of the promises in it?

Click to expand...

That is a fallacy. Doesn't it make more sense to have faith in the author than in a man-made book?

Christians have replaced listening to the voice of God with reading a book. They study the book and argue about the book while ignoring the voice of the living God.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the Bible and have a reasonable amount of trust in it as well. But if you want to know what's wrong with the Bible just ask the atheists, they will tell you. I don't buy everything they are selling, but in many cases they are right. The English translation of the Bible has many errors in it. Search: errors in the Bible

From my perspective, the translation that we have is biased toward Damnationism. Those who collected and voted on the books to include in the canon of scripture, and their manipulation of the text in translation has made it so.

St. Jerome wrote: "They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own" (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern day Christian doctrine rests upon the premise that “God” preserved the "christian bible" in an absolute infallible and pure state, in order that all men should know the “truth” and believe in the Son of ‘God’. Their doctrinal position is that if “God” permitted the Bible to have been altered, then the present day church could not be genuine. Based upon this dogmatic presumption that the Christian Church must be maintained in order for man to be saved, they reason that “God” would not allow the written word of the scriptures to be corrupted. Thus, modern Christians cling to this doctrine -- ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- evidence from their own patristic church founders that demonstrates conclusively that the bible has been severely altered and edited -- because they fail to grasp the very foundational principles of the Renewed Covenant itself -- principles that are not just historical, but spiritual as well. It is not until we understand that the Set Apart Word is a road-map that leads us to the Gate of the Kingdom, and the Word that is written in our hearts -- rather than a final revelation from “God” to man -- that we are able to even begin to come to terms with the true Set Apart Word of YHWH that can never be corrupted.

Source: http://www.rescuingjesusfromchristianity.com/BibleInerrancy.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the 'Christian Bible'. The construction and 'canonization' never had input from the first followers and leaders of the Galilean Jewish Messiah, Jesus. It took over a century, after the waning influence of the original Jewish-Christian 'Jerusalem Church', of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every denomination, every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The carefully crafted illusion that it was otherwise created by 'divine provenance' belittles the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won", with the original oral traditions of the first followers and leaders of the original Jewish-Christian 'Jerusalem Church' being mostly lost with only small bits being saved as heretical teachings within the patristic writings of the first 'fathers' of the "church that won".

Has the 'Bible' Been Faithfully Preserved?

Jamdoc said:

I trust that the bible is the word of God and that God has preserved the meaning of the books. Otherwise, we can't have faith in anything else. if we can't trust that the bible is the word of God, how can you trust any of the promises in it?

Click to expand...

What becomes of our faith in the true and living God if we discover that the Bible is not as trustworthy as we have been told it is? Can we "ride the bike" without the training wheels?

Saint Steven said:

What becomes of our faith in the true and living God if we discover that the Bible is not as trustworthy as we have been told it is? Can we "ride the bike" without the training wheels?

Click to expand...

Well it's been right so far, and you'd only know if it's wrong or right when you die.
But if you can't trust that the bible is right.. our entire faith is riding on it being right. If it's not right, we do everything wrong, even live our lives the wrong way, have faith in the wrong things, earn ourselves punishment rather than eternal life.
Then what do you believe, do you believe every "heavenly tourist" that as an out of body experience on some talk show and writes a book about it as doctrine even when it conflicts the bible?
Do you believe everyone who claims to hear an audible voice of God for your doctrine?
You can go really far astray in doctrine when you go outside of the bible. Annihilationism is only an example of an unbiblical doctrine, but when you start going down that path where the bible teaches ECT and you believe Annihilationism or Universalism, it'll pick apart your more important doctrines like the one in this thread, the doctrine of substitution which is core to our understanding of salvation. You believe a bad doctrine on salvation and you might just find out whether it's Annihilationism or ECT. I wouldn't want to find out. The bible teaches ECT so I REALLY don't want to find out the wrong way that the bible is right.
I look at it this way, the bible is piled with prophecies, regarding the first and second coming of the Messiah. The prophecies involving the first coming, including the prophecized messiah being "cut off" have all been fulfilled. There are many more that involve the second coming and considering the current state of the world things are being set up for the scenario where the second coming happens right now in the last 70 years or so, and even in the last few years with the alliances forming in the middle east according to Ezekiel 38. There are a lot of prophecies that may be fulfilled in our near future.
Fulfillment of prophecy to me, shows the bible to be true, so I'm wary to consider doctrines that do not come from the bible. I feel that the bible doesn't tell us absolutely everything, Proverbs 25:2 shows that He conceals knowledge for His glory, the book of Daniel was sealed up to where it's not properly understood (but will be more clearly understood in the end times, maybe even now, I find more coherent theories coming up about the prophecies that many people assumed to be past fulfillments but now they note they don't match, so they are probably future fulfillments, like Daniel 8 that Gabriel says 3 times is about the end times but people always thought it was Alexander the Great), the seven thunders in Revelation 10, etc. There's stuff we won't know yet.
But.. so speculating on something that is NOT in the bible .. okay.. don't be dogmatic about it, but some things the bible just doesn't talk about so we have to try and guess sometimes and be prepared to be wrong. But if the bible teaches us a doctrinal position... you shouldn't contradict it with doctrines learned outside of the bible and declare the bible to be false.

Jamdoc said:

Well it's been right so far, and you'd only know if it's wrong or right when you die.
But if you can't trust that the bible is right.. our entire faith is riding on it being right. If it's not right, we do everything wrong, even live our lives the wrong way, have faith in the wrong things, earn ourselves punishment rather than eternal life.
Then what do you believe, do you believe every "heavenly tourist" that as an out of body experience on some talk show and writes a book about it as doctrine even when it conflicts the bible?

Click to expand...

This was a question I had to wrestle with when I first began to look into UR. If the Bible is wrong about the final judgment, then how can we trust it to be right about anything? If our faith is built on the Bible, how can you discount it in any way? If you do, will not our faith be gone?

After doing my homework I came to realize that there were three biblical positions for the doctrine concerning the final judgment.
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Universal Restorationism

Therefore, I wasn't disregarding the Bible to choose UR. After all, there is biblical support for it. Damnationism is only the prominent view, and the Bible translation has a biased slant toward it. There is quite a bit of controversy around the translation of some words, like "eternal". Even the Bible declares that ONLY God is eternal. Do Damnationists believe that?

As to your last question above, no, everything must be tested. And the Bible is very helpful in that regard. But ultimately I rely on the indwelling Spirit to guide me.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.