Featured The Case for Penal Substitution

PSA is a Trojan Horse of Limited Atonement. Christ died for all sinners, those to be saved and those never to be saved. Only when an individual is transferred spiritually into Christ, and undergoes the circumcision of Christ, is his or her sin burden (what God holds against the person) removed.

 

PSA denies 1 John 2:2 which indicates Christ's death provides the propitiation for the whole world, rather than a subset.

 

Lets see, sequence one:

1) God chooses foreseen individuals, with or without foreseen faith, before creation.
2) Christ dies for the specific sins of those previously chosen individuals


Sequence two:
1) God chooses His Redeemer individually and those He will redeem corporately before creation.
2) Christ dies for all mankind, those to be redeemed and those never to be redeemed.
3) God chooses individually those whose faith in Christ He has credited as righteousness and transfers them into Christ, thus redeeming them.

Note in sequence two, every individual had not been individually chosen until after they lived not as a chosen people and not yet having obtained mercy.

If anyone can mesh 1 Peter 2:9-10 with individual election before creation, go for it.

In summary, Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross provides the price of redemption for everyone transferred into Christ, thus Christ died for all mankind, although only those put into Christ receive that reconciliation, because the penalty for their individual sins is removed by the circumcision of Christ.

 

That is not the issue! The issue is denial by wrong interpretation. We have pointed out plenty of wrong interpretations of scripture and provided solid exegetical based evidence to prove it and your response to that evidence is NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING!

 

Or, perhaps, you could actually give the Scriptures that have been requested that actually support your view.

 

And I am saying this accusation is completely false. I am saying the reason you make this accusation is because you conflate the completed act with ongoing applications or previous prerequisites.

What does the phrase "without the shedding of blood there is no....." begin with? Does it say "without the shedding of blood there is no regeneration.....no sanctification....no glorification.....no destruction of the works of Satan.....etc."? Well, certainly all things are not possible apart from the "shedding of blood" but that is not the beginning point is it?

Ask yourself what is being atoned? What is it in every single sacrifice in the book of Leviticus and the repeated reason to make atonement for? For what? Ask yourself what is being atoned in Isaiah 53? If there is no transgression there is no need of atonement - complete stop! So, throughtout scripture atonement begins with sinners committing sin.

Atonement deals with sinners with their sins as an offence to God's glory which satisfies his just wrath against sinners and their sins. It's applications after the completed act are consequences of that completed action.

 

No, I placed undeniable hard exegetical facts before your face. E.g. present tense participles (Jn. 3:18), explicit language that denies the only grounds for condemnation is unbelief (Jn. 3:19). That the conclusion (vv. 19-21) proves Christ's assertion for the necessity of new birth (Jn. 3:3-11). That unbelief is first introduced in verses 12 as a secondary subject.

Romans 5:12 the aorist tense completed action verb (have sinned) rather than a future tense which would speak of sins beyond the sin introduced at the beginning of the verse along with the contextual evidence "by one man's disobedience many......" and the list goes on and on.

No, the exegetical facts prove your view is based upon misinterpretation of the text and supports your view no more than proof texting by a JW proves their intepretation to be correct.

 

How can PSA be limited to one aspect when the very initials for it demand at least two aspects. How can it be restricted to "penal satisfaction" aspect from "substitionary" aspect. How can it be limited to unrighteousness apart from righteousness? How can it be limited to the law of God apart from what the law reflects - the righteousness of God. What you are saying is on the surface wrong much less when we consider any details of the atonement.

 

This is why you don't understand the atonement as you confuse the atonement with its applications. The atonement is a COMPLETED ACTION on the cross but all these other things are not completed actions - that in itself should wake you up from your slumber of delusions.

 

Word studies are merely one aspect of proper exegesis. In John 3:18 there is no dispute that I know about concerning the meaning of any word. The dispute is over your limitations and applications of the words in verse 18 which the text along with its contexts just does not support.

 

Its wrong because it logical denies the necessity of death on the cross to atone for sins just as your view does.

 

Well, Gentleman, I am getting off this merri-go-round. Got grandchildren here and so a higher calling takes me away.