3 Reasons I changed my mind about Penal Substitution

how did you arrive at this conclusion?

 

Some of those against it stated that reason why reject it is due to it making God out to be a child molester to His own Son!
And yet Jesus Himself fully agreed to it from eternity past!

 

PST is the ONLY view that allows for God to remain both Holy and also able to provide full justification for lost sinners!

 

The PST view would be the logical conclusion after reading the Gospels and Paul!

 

Jesus Christ IS Almighty God, and is not the "Son" as we know of our earthly relationships. As God Jesus could not disagree with Himself.

 

He was in full agreement with the Father and the Holy Spirit, as all 3 of them were involved in plan of salvation!

 

RevMitchell, thank you so much for pointing us to this minister being featured on the website of The Gospel Coalition!

Sermons by Daniel Hames here: St. Aldates Parish, Oxford


the Right Reverend Colin Fletcher with new ordinands Reverends Sheila Crowther, Daniel Hames and Jarred Mercer


Oxfordshire Guardian

 

The clincher on penal substitution for me is Romans 5. Paul speaks of Imputation.

Here's the beauty in Imputation.

God imputed Adam's sin to us. Then God Imputed our sins to Christ. And then Imputed Christ's righteousness to us. All according to Romans 5.

But look how we made out. Jesus is God, so we now have the infinite righteousness of God worthy of all the blessings only God deserves!!

“God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

 

It appears not one of the advocates of the Trojan Horse are willing to answer the question. Nuff said, the theory of unbiblical.

Question, did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? If He paid for the specific sins of those never to be saved, why does God require double payment during their torment in the afterlife?

 

answer, the Bible says that all sinners must "repent and believe" to appropriate their salvation in Jesus Christ. If they do, they are born-again and saved; if they don't, then their rejection of their salvation in Jesus Christ ensures their place in hell.

 

Question, did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? If He paid for the specific sins of those never to be saved, why does God require double payment during their torment in the afterlife?

Did you see whether Jesus laid down His life as a ransom for all. The answer is yes, 1 Timothy 2:6

Did Jesus pay for the specific sins of those never to be saved. Of course not, that would constitute double punishment.

No need to create confusion when the concept is simple.

Christ's death bought everyone out of the Old Covenant, and into the New Covenant in His blood. Those to be saved and those never to be saved, 2 Peter 2:1 Any other viewpoint denies 1 Timothy 2:6 Only those spiritually placed into Christ undergo the washing of regeneration where the penalty for all their specific sins, past, present and future are removed.

 

if, as you say, that Penal Substitution is not taught in the Bible, then you might be using a Roman Catholic edition?

 

Limited Atonement is the only doctrine that presents salvation by grace alone. It's all works otherwise.

 

show from the Bible that this is wrong

Penal Substitution
The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God's law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ's saving work consisted in his taking the sinner's place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.
Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the Father. Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward this view. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about the way Christ won our salvation.

Theories of the Atonement by Leon Morris

 

do you understand what this is?

 

says you, but Jesus Christ disagrees, see Mark 1:15; Luke 13:1-5; 24:47, etc