Penal Substitution.....?

[Philip]

this is the horns of the dilema ......... there are those who will insist that God can forgive without any atonement , without any shedding of innocent blood ............. but when asked was it necessary for Christ to die , they will say "oh yes" !

Where is the dilemma? It seems to me that you are illustrating one of the objections to PSA I raised way back in Post #6. PSA, by subjugating forgiveness to Christ's atoning death, reduces atonement to a forensic matter. In turn, this presumes that the problem of sin is merely one of guilt. However, this has never (or at least not before the Reformation) been the Christian understanding of sin.

And should they reply no Christ wasn't meant to die , it was not God's will , then how do they explain Gethsemene ?

Has anyone suggested such in this thread?

There are two distict ideas about the Atonement being necessary , the first is ...... No , it was not necessary that God should save anyone by atoneing for sin , God could have left mankind in sin , hopeless and helpless , with a certain outcome ..... destruction for all!

I think that we all agree that God is not forced to save us. Rather, He freely chooses to do so.

Then there is the factor of the necessity of God being righteous , upholding Righteousness and making all those who He would save ... JUSTIFIED , made righteous .... and God cannot deny His holiness ........

Are you admitting that God makes us righteous? That He does not merely declare us righteous, but actually makes us righteous?

He cannot sin ,

Agreed, but I would assert that this is a vacuous statement.

anymore than He can permit sin to go unpunished .........

You have claimed this countless times here and in other threads. However, you have yet to explain why God can not permit sin to go unpunished.

for to let sin go unpunished is to sanction sin

This is incorrect. How is allowing sin to go unpunished sanctioning sin? Can you illustrate how allowing sin to go unpunished sanctions sin anymore than permitting sin to occur in the first place sanctions sin?

Allow me to illustrate how one can allow sin to go unpunished, yet not sanction sin. When my son is disobedient and disrespectful, he sins. However, I do not punish him. That is, I do not feel the need to 'get even' with him. I do not feel the need to satisfy some sense of justice. I do not react out of anger. I do not hold it against him. Indeed, if I did any of these, I would be sinning myself. I do, however, forgive him.

Nonetheless, there is not doubt in his mind that I neither approve nor sanction his actions. I do correct him. I do express my displeasure with his actions. I do, out of a desire to improve him, discipline him.

 

[Philip]

.

 

[inchristalone221]

I am willing to admit that God is fully capable and would be in His right to let sin go unpunished. The problem is that He has revealed Himself in terms contrary to that belief.

I'm not sure I understand this distinction between penal substitutionary atonement and simply substitutionary atonement, but I believe these comments will help either way:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

God's wrath is kindled against unrighteousness. His personal holiness is offended by sin, and He will punish it.

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,

Paul tells us that every evil-doer will be punished, and we know that not all evil doers are punished in this life. Therefore it follows that they must be punished on some eternal scale.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

God made the blameless lamb (Christ) to bear our sins on the cross, so that we might have His righteousness imputed to us.

How does one deal with these passages without penal substitutionary atonement?

 

[Philip]

I am willing to admit that God is fully capable and would be in His right to let sin go unpunished.

That is quite refreshing. Most defenders of RT here on CF seem unwilling to allow for that. But your statement does open some questions. For example, why does God demand punishment for sins if He does not need to?

The problem is that He has revealed Himself in terms contrary to that belief.

I disagree. I believe that He has revealed Himself in exactly that manner.

I'm not sure I understand this distinction between penal substitutionary atonement and simply substitutionary atonement, but I believe these comments will help either way:

The difference is this:

SA teaches that (S) Christ died in our place, and (A) His death brought about atonement. The explaination of how His death atones varies differs depending on to which model(s) the person subscribes.

PSA teaches that (P) Christ was punished for our sins when (S) He died in our place, and (A) His punishment and death brought about atonement.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

God's wrath is kindled against unrighteousness. His personal holiness is offended by sin, and He will punish it.

I'm sorry, but can you point me to the words in this verse that indicate punishment? It seems that you are making the same mistake that the other defenders of RT are making in this thread: you assume that God's wrath drives Him to punish. However, I have demonstrated several times in this thread (see Post #61 among others) that the nature of God's wrath is not to punish the wicked, but to bring an end to their wickedness.

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,

Paul tells us that every evil-doer will be punished, and we know that not all evil doers are punished in this life. Therefore it follows that they must be punished on some eternal scale.

Again, the word 'punish' does not appear in this verse. You are reading 'punish' into it. St Paul tells us that we will experience 'tribulation and distress'. But why assume these are a punishment? Might they not be discipline and chastisement to correct our ways?

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

God made the blameless lamb (Christ) to bear our sins on the cross,

We all agree that He bore our sins. He was not, however, punished for them. You identify Christ as the Blameless Lamb, and this is good. But think back to the lambs of the Old Testament, especially the original Passover lambs. These prefigure Christ's death. These lambs died that the Israelites might live and escape bondage in Egypt. By the blood of these lambs, they were spare from the death that befell the firstborn of the Egyptians. Yet, would anyone suggest that these lambs were punished?

so that we might have His righteousness imputed to us.

Look back at the passage again. It states 'so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.' There is no mention of 'imputed righteousness'. Christ actually makes us righteous. Scripture speaks again and again of us becoming righteous. This exposes another problem with PSA. The wicked becoming righteous does not fit in the forensic model at the core of PSA. The innovation of 'imputed righteousness' is an attempt to repair that problem.

How does one deal with these passages without penal substitutionary atonement?

Quite easily. None of them mention penalties or punishment. The real question should be 'Why read PSA into these passages?'

 

[cygnusx1]

so far we have yet another statement that makes little sense , in fact I have not a clue what this means , no context is given and no scripture is forethcoming ....... why did Christ have to die ?

Christ had to die because the wicked could not accept His presence.

what on earth is that supposed to mean ........................


is it supposed to mean something like , Christ had to die because ............Roman soldiers were doing their job ?

 

[Philip]

so far we have yet another statement that makes little sense , in fact I have not a clue what this means , no context is given and no scripture is forethcoming ....... why did Christ have to die ?

It helps to read the entire post. Just a few lines down, I stated

Indeed, this tells us that Christ had to die. Further, it tells us why: the elders, chief priests, and scribes rejected Him. This passage does not suggest that Christ had to die to satisfy some form of justice. It does not suggest that Christ had to be punished.

This was in reference to JJB mention of the passage:

Mark 8:31
And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
​

It seems that your criticism was unjustified. Both Scripture and explanation were given. All you had to do was read the entire post.

 

[cygnusx1]

It helps to read the entire post. Just a few lines down, I stated



This was in reference to JJB mention of the passage:

Mark 8:31
And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
​

It seems that your criticism was unjustified. Both Scripture and explanation were given. All you had to do was read the entire post.

this has to be the most pointless post thus far!!!

Jesus had to die ......... because the elders chief priests and the scribes will reject him and have him killed ............


talk about obscuring the truth!

Why did Jesus have to die ?

try giving us an answer that explains why He was sent by the Father to die for sinners .......... and don't give me "so that He could arise on the third day!"

The nearest answer so far is that Jesus had to die to overcome sin and death ........... but that still begs the question why?

Why can God not overcome sin and death without killing His own Son ?

(I am having difficulty posting today , CF is dragging , so my responses will be sparse , sorry)

 

[jckstraw72]

Why can God not overcome sin and death without killing His own Son ?

why cant God forgive sins and appease His justice/anger without killing Christ? Why cant God just forgive and forget?

 

[jckstraw72]

Why can God not overcome sin and death without killing His own Son ?

why cant God forgive sins and appease His justice/anger with killing Christ? Why cant God forgive and forget?

 

[jckstraw72]

Why can God not overcome sin and death without killing His own Son ?

why cant God forgive sins and appease His justice/anger with killing Christ? Why cant God forgive and forget?

....and Christ had to come as a man and do it so that sin and death would be overcome for mankind. no human coluld sanctify humanity, so Christ had to do it.

 

[Philip]

this has to be the most pointless post thus far!!!

Pointless because it illustrated that you do not fully read other's posts?

Jesus had to die ......... because the elders chief priests and the scribes will reject him and have him killed ............

That's what Scripture says.

Why did Jesus have to die ?

Asked and answered. Perhaps you didn't read the answer, but your question has been answered.

Once again, I will borrow from St Athanasius

And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father—doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriationof His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire​

If you would take the time to read St Athanasius's On the Incarnation of the Word, you would save yourself many questions.

try giving us an answer that explains why He was sent by the Father to die for sinners .......... and don't give me "so that He could arise on the third day!"

Why not?

The nearest answer so far is that Jesus had to die to overcome sin and death ........... but that still begs the question why?

It begs the question no more than stating the Reformed position: Christ had to die so that God could forgive sins. Why? Why can God not forgive sins without killing His own Son?

Why can God not overcome sin and death without killing His own Son ?

You misrepresent my position. I do not claim that God killed His own Son. I claim that humans did. St Peter teach us

Acts 2:22-23
"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
​

It was God's plan to hand Christ over to His enemies, but God did not kill Him. Scriptures clearly state that Christ was put to death by godless men.

 

[JJB]

Philip,
I went back through this thread and read your response #6 -- which you continue to claim you have already answered the question of why Christ died. All I see there is opinon from you on why you find SA offensive. None of your "I do not accept/believe" statements contain any scripture.

Like Cygnusx1, I cannot make heads nor tails of some of your comments. Since there are two of us scratching our heads, perhaps it would help to move the discussion along if can give us your answer in other words.

Philip, you indeed did say you believed in the Moral Influence theory and this is why I brought it up, my friend. Quoting your post #6:

1. I accept the Christus Victor/Recapitulation model of Atonement. I believe that in the Incarnation, Christ reunited creation with God. He placed man back on the path toward perfect union with God.
2. Secondarily, I accept the Ransom and Moral Example models of Atonement. That is, by Christ's submission to death at the hands of the unrighteous, He showed us how to be righteous. In His Resurrection, we see that He is vindicated as righteous before God. In this, He has shown us how to be at one with God.

There are three theories on the atonement: Classic Theory, Abelard's (or moral influence), and Penal Substitutionary. The first two do not go far enough -- they got it half-way correct. The first two, which you hold to, cannot answer the why Christ died. Perhaps, that is why CygnusX1 and I cannot figure out how your responses answer the why...

 

[plum]

It seems to me one of the arguments here is the meaning and motivation of the word "punishment". Some say punishment is "getting even" and totally unlike "wrath" (as seen in Rom 1:18).
So may I ask you: What is "punishment"? since this idea is key to Penal Substitution... I'd like to know.

Philip, you've said this a number of times: that this verse explains why Messiah died:

Mark 8:31
And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

let's look at this again really quick, because your interpretation of this is very unsatisfying to my understanding. Here's why:

the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed

check out the bolded words. You seem to be stating that the first "and" means "because he would" and the second "and" means "and because of this he would" making this NEW verse with a NEW meaning:

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things [because he would] be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, [and because of this he would] be killed, and after three days rise again.

Please explain how the word "and" means "because"! As I can see, your statement is not illustrated by this verse at all.
Now, if you can show me from the Greek how there is a meaning of "because" in here, then I will think it makes a shred of sense.
I'm just wondering if you could clarify. Feel free to do it via PM if you wish. I don't frequest this thread as much as I could.

thank you.

and thanks to everyone for such a fascinating debate thus far. very educational.

 

[Philip]

Philip,
I went back through this thread and read your response #6 -- which you continue to claim you have already answered the question of why Christ died. All I see there is opinon from you on why you find SA offensive.

Once again (and I stated this in Post #6 as well as several other posts in this thread)

First, note that my objection to Penal Substitutionary Atonement rests in the Penal portion of the theory. I have no problem with substitutionary atonement when properly understood.

Like Cygnusx1, I cannot make heads nor tails of some of your comments. Since there are two of us scratching our heads, perhaps it would help to move the discussion along if can give us your answer in other words.

This thread has covered much ground. Can your narrow your request to a couple of specific questions?

Philip, you indeed did say you believed in the Moral Influence theory and this is why I brought it up, my friend. Quoting your post #6:

Please note that I stated that I accept it as a secondary understanding. It is secondary (along with Ransom) to the Christus Victor model. Look back at the previous posts. You stated

Is Christ's work on the cross merely an example for us to follow? [Emphasis mine]

To which I responded

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested such.

And I stand by that responce. No one has asserted that Christ's death was merely an example. I accept the Moral Example model of atonement as a secondary understanding of Christ's death. You stated yourself that a moral example is part of Christ's mission to us:

I can actually agree that Christ did come as an example for us, but He does not stop there! No, no. Not merely an example, but a propitiation! Praise God for his love and mercy to us!

There are three theories on the atonement: Classic Theory, Abelard's (or moral influence), and Penal Substitutionary.

I am not sure what you have in mind by 'Classic Theory', but I can think of more than three models of atonement.

1. Recapitulation - This is the Orthodox view.
2. Ransom - This was the view of St Gregory of Nyssa. It is useful as a metaphor, but it breaks down when one asks to whom the ransom was payed.
3. Moral Example - While Abelard was the first to offer a Scholastic presentation of this model, it dates much further back.
4. Divine Satisfaction - This was Anselm's original view -- that we owed a debt of honor and service to God -- as vassels owe honor and service to their feudal lord. Christ satisfied this debt.
5. Penal Satisfaction Aquinas's view was similar to Anselm's, but he claimed the debt God demanded a punishment for sin. Like Anselm, Aquinas believed that Christ satisfied this penalty for all mankind. Calvin largely maintain Aquinas's view, but assigned the benefits of atonement to individual persons rather than to all mankind.
6. Governmental - This was largely the view of Wesley's view, but I think it may have had its origins in Arminius. It proposes that Christ's death did not take the actual punishment due to man. In Christ's death God showed His displeasure with sin, and this satisfied God.
7. Scapegoat Developed recently as an attempt to combine Moral Example and Ransom.

There are probably more, but these come to mind first.

The first two do not go far enough -- they got it half-way correct.

I am not sure what you mean by 'do not go far enough'.

The first two, which you hold to, cannot answer the why Christ died. Perhaps, that is why CygnusX1 and I cannot figure out how your responses answer the why...

I think perhaps the problem may be in the question. You ask 'Why did Christ die?' The answer is simple -- godless men killed Him:

Acts 2:23-24
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
​

It was God's intent to hand Christ over to His enemies, but it was His enemies who killed Him. But God overcame the godless men. The pangs of death had been loosed. And how did this occur?

Hebrews 2:14-15
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.
​

By Christ's death, He defeated death. Further, the entire purpose of Christ's mission was to defeat sin and the devil:

1 John 3:8
He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
​

Christ did not come to appease His Father. He did not come to satisfy justice. He came to defeat the works of the devil.

When you ask 'Why did Christ die?', it seems what you truly want is an answer to the question 'Why did God require that Christ die?' or even 'Why did the Father kill the Son?' But to ask these questions, you must first establish that God required Christ to die, or even killed Him Himself.

 

[cygnusx1]

It seems to me one of the arguments here is the meaning and motivation of the word "punishment". Some say punishment is "getting even" and totally unlike "wrath" (as seen in Rom 1:18).
So may I ask you: What is "punishment"? since this idea is key to Penal Substitution... I'd like to know.

Amen !!!

my thought exactly!

what is the PENALTY for sin?????

 

[cygnusx1]

1. Governmental - This was largely the view of Wesley's view, but I think it may have had its origins in Arminius. It proposes that Christ's death did not take the actual punishment due to man. In Christ's death God showed His displeasure with sin, and this satisfied God.

here is Wesley's view!

'Justice divine is satisfied'

The early Methodists and penal substitution

In the recent debate over the nature of the atoning work of Christ, it has been suggested that teaching on penal substitution belongs particularly to the Reformed tradition, especially to a line leading from John Calvin, through to Charles Hodge.
This appears to be an attempt to marginalise the doctrine into belonging to only one strand within evangelicalism, and to suggest that teaching on penal substitution is the historically unrepresentative child of 19th-century American Reformed thinking. Certainly the understanding of the atonement as a work of propitiation has been strongly held by those in the Reformed tradition (to which this writer is happy to belong).
However, this view has been strongly maintained across the evangelical constituency, as was ably demonstrated during the 18th-century evangelical revival. From well-known names such as Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys, to unheralded and obscure lay preachers, from Calvinist to Arminian, all preached the gospel urgently, convinced, as John Wesley put it, that nothing in the Christian system ‘is of greater consequence than the doctrine of the atonement’. Crucial to their understanding was that the saving work of Christ on the cross was a propitiatory sacrifice.


Great importance

For both John and Charles Wesley, penal substitution was of great importance. After his conversion in May 1738, Charles was able to declare: ‘No condemnation now I dread: Jesus, and all in him, is mine!’ Within a year he was boldly proclaiming the theme before the University of Oxford: ‘God sent his only Son our saviour Christ into this world to fulfil the law for us, and by the shedding of his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice or amends to his Father for our sins, and assuage his wrath and indignation conceived against us for the same’.
The same emphasis echoes through John Wesley’s sermons. These were not simply published as a record of what the great leader of Methodism had preached, but were to be expository models for other preachers, and a summary of Methodist teaching. The substitutionary work of Christ is asserted: ‘To him that is justified or forgiven… God will not inflict on that sinner what he deserved to suffer, because the Son of his love hath suffered for him’. The language of propitiation is also much used: ‘Jesus Christ is “the whole and sole propitiation”’. To Wesley, the plain tenor of the gospel message was: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whom God hath given to be the propitiation for thy sins, and thou shalt be saved’.


Propitiation

In his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, the same views are set out with startling clarity. So, on Romans 3.25, Wesley writes: ‘25. Whom God set forth — before angels and men, a propitiation — To appease an offended God. But if, as some teach, God never was offended, there was no need of this propitiation. And if so, Christ died in vain. To declare his righteousness — To demonstrate not only his clemency, but his justice… whose essential character and principal office is, to punish sin.’
The propitiatory sacrifice of Christ demonstrated both God’s justice towards sin, which had to be punished, and his mercy, for the just punishment for sin was willingly paid by his Son. It was crucial to Wesley that God’s justice and mercy should be held in perfect harmony, as he adds: ‘The attribute of justice must be preserved inviolate. And inviolate it is preserved, if there was a real infliction of punishment on our Saviour. On this plan all the attributes harmonise. Every attribute is glorified, and not one superseded no, nor so much as clouded.’
Merely forgiving, or doing away with sin, without the due punishment being dealt with, would not have maintained the integrity of God’s character. John Wesley also saw the ‘mercy seat’ in Exodus 25.17-18, as awesomely foreshadowing the cross: ‘This propitiatory covering, as it might well be translated, was a type of Christ the great propitiation, whose satisfaction covers our transgressions, and comes between us and the curse we deserve.’


Absolutely fundamental

Penal substitution was, to the founder of Methodism, absolutely fundamental to Christianity. When Andrew Ramsay in his Principles of Religion rejected these teachings as ‘frivolous and blasphemous notions’, Wesley objected strongly: ‘These “frivolous and blasphemous notions” do I receive as the precious truths of God. And so deplorable is my ignorance, that I verily believe all who deny them, deny the Lord that bought them’. In 1756 Wesley protested over the denial of the doctrine of justification by faith contained in some of William Law’s later statements, such as, ‘There is no wrath in God, no fictitious atonement, no folly of debtor and creditor’. Wesley responded, quoting an unnamed 16th-century author:
‘As man owed his Creator the perfect obedience of his whole life, or a punishment proportioned to his transgression, it was impossible he could satisfy him by a partial and imperfect obedience… There was need, therefore, of a Mediator who could repair the immense wrong he had done to the Divine Majesty, satisfy the Supreme Judge, who had pronounced the sentence of death against the transgressions of his law, suffer in the place of his people, and merit for them pardon, holiness, and glory’.
To Wesley, this was no cold, legal transaction, it was the ‘inmost mystery of the Christian faith’, the supreme proof of the love of God. The propitiatory death of the Saviour was no personal act of violence inflicted on him by the Father; rather it was an act of free, willing, loving submission within the Trinity, in which Father, Son and Holy Spirit, were at one: ‘The Mediator voluntarily interposed himself between them and the just Judge. And the incomprehensible love of God, that he might spare them, “spared not his own Son”.’


Next generation

The same emphasis remained strong in the following generation of Wesley’s followers. The famous Methodist scholar and commentator Adam Clarke, dealing with the words of Isaiah 53.6, ‘The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all’, declared: ‘Those fiery rays, which should have fallen on all mankind, diverged from divine justice to the east, west, north, and south, were deflected from them, and converged in him. So the Lord hath caused to meet in him the punishment due to the iniquities of ALL’.
The teaching of penal substitution also became foundational to the army of lay preachers and class leaders, who were the key players in the local Methodist circuits and societies. Manuscripts from lay preachers in the circuit around the Shropshire town of Madeley, scene of the faithful ministry of Wesley’s one-time right-hand man, John Fletcher, show how cross-centred Methodist lay preaching in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was. As one preacher, using Romans 3.25 as a text, put it: ‘A propitiation means an atoning sacrifice, by which the wrath of God is appeased. But how did he become this propitiation? I answer, by putting himself in our place, and drinking the cup of justice due to our sins’. The cost, the preacher emphasised, was awful and immense: ‘He must drink the whole cup to the very dregs — that he might become in the fullest sense our propitiation’. Penal substitution was teaching that brought a profound challenge to love and obedience: ‘How cold are our returns of love to him who hath given himself to bear our curse and suffer all our punishment… Here is the foundation of all our blessings …’.


Singing the cross

Not only did the early Methodists delight to preach the cross, they loved to sing its story. In their hymns, the language of ‘penal substitution’ was never far away:
For what you have done
His blood must atone:
The Father hath punished for
you his dear Son,
The Lord, in the day
Of his anger, did lay
Your sins on the Lamb, and he bore them away.


Or again:

Accomplished is the sacrifice,
The great redeeming work is done;
‘Tis finished! All the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied;
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world hath died.
This awesome message these lay preachers gladly sang, and earnestly shared. They proclaimed it to the agricultural workers, the colliers, the tradespeople of Madeley and the growing industrial Black Country. They and countless other Methodists across England preached what they had learned from Wesley, and Fletcher and Clarke, but more than that, they proclaimed the fruits of their plain reading of the Bible, which echoed with their personal experience.
This evangelical message was spiritually liberating, and propelled them out into barns and cottages and kitchens, to tell what God had done through Christ for them. Their sermons brought comfort in distressing and troubled times, and hope of an eternal future with Christ. They filled Methodist class meetings and chapels: many ordinary, hurting, struggling, needy people heard them gladly, and embraced their message. The teaching of penal substitution brought blessing to souls then, and lovingly, wisely, and reverentially preached now, evangelicals can have every confidence that it will continue to do the same.


Dr. Ian. J. Shaw,
Lecturer in Church History, International Christian College, Glasgow
This article is an extract from The Divine Substitute, a forthcoming book on the atonement in the Bible and church history written by Dr. Ian J. Shaw and the Rev. Brian Edwards, to be published by DayOne in April.



http://www.e-n.org.uk/2006-03/3348-'Justice-divine-is-satisfied'.htm

 

[inchristalone221]

what is the PENALTY for sin?????

The wages of sin is death.

 

[edie19]

deny it all you like!!!


God is Love , but more central God is Holy ....... the angels don't sing Love Love Love (that was the Beatles) they sing Holy Holy Holy!


A book as long as Acts , which contains Apostolic sermons , hundreds converted , and full of wonderful records of the Early church does not even contain the word "love" .... no , not even once in the entire book!

Thanks for the post Cygnus - I never understand why some folks seem to discount the attribute of God's holiness, make it secondary. Angels in heaven cover their eyes in His presence due to that very holiness, choirs of angels spend their entire existance singing Holy, Holy, Holy. Until fairly recently - the love vs holiness wouldn't have been open for discussion - everyone assumed God's holiness as one of His greatest, if not the greatest, attributes.

But, back to the penal substitutionary atonement - how do folks reconcile Isaiah 53:4-6? To me - Isaiah clearly states that God strikes Jesus the Christ, that the punishment we deserve fell on Christ. I may not have the book knowledge that many of the foks here do, but this passage clearly speaks to God's intent - that Christ was to take the punishment due us.

edie

 

[edie19]

The wages of sin is death.

Amen - God doesn't get any clearer on the subject.

edie

 

[cygnusx1]

Thanks for the post Cygnus - I never understand why some folks seem to discount the attribute of God's holiness, make it secondary. Angels in heaven cover their eyes in His presence due to that very holiness, choirs of angels spend their entire existance singing Holy, Holy, Holy. Until fairly recently - the love vs holiness wouldn't have been open for discussion - everyone assumed God's holiness as one of His greatest, if not the greatest, attributes.

But, back to the penal substitutionary atonement - how do folks reconcile Isaiah 53:4-6? To me - Isaiah clearly states that God strikes Jesus the Christ, that the punishment we deserve fell on Christ. I may not have the book knowledge that many of the foks here do, but this passage clearly speaks to God's intent - that Christ was to take the punishment due us.

edie

How true Sister , and many would quibble over who killed the Son Of God!

True , the instrument used was "wicked men" , but there is ample evidence that God Himself sacrificed , gave His own Son up , made atonement , condemned sin in the flesh and ordained decreed and purposed the death of His Son !

So much so that Paul informs us that the governing authorities are there by the hand of God , and those who oppose these authorities oppose God! (Romans 13)

It was the will of the Lord to "bruise Him "

Isaiah 53:10​

Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him. He has caused him to suffer. When you make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. He shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his hand. (WEB)

Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his'seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. (ASV)
And the Lord was pleased ... see a seed, long life, ... will do well in his hand. ... (BBE)
Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath subjected him to suffering. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see a seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. (DBY)
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (KJV)
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (WBS)
And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper. (YLT)

some cannot see the significance of God doing what men are doing ........... even when Satan is said to have "moved David to number the people" 1 Chronicles 21:1

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Chronicles 21:1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Chronicles 21:1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Chronicles 21:1[/FONT]​

it is elsewhere recorded that God moved David to number the people ! 2 Samuel 24:1


And Job does not look at secondary causes (only the short-sighted do) but recognises the hand of God over all His afflictions.
Job 1:6-2:10