Featured Penal Substitution Theory

You misunderstand.

It pleased God to crush Him, to put Him to grief. You assume this was God crushing Him, putting Him to grief rather than it pleasing God to crush Him, to put Him to grief.

The reason is you start with tradition and then ho to Scripture.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

When you stick to God's Word rather than tradition you understand that evil men crushed Him, put Him to grief, but this was the predetermined will of God (Peter's sermon in Acts).

But yes, this involved pain and suffering. You asking whether it did is a foolish question.

Where you stray from God's Word is changing the ones putting Him to grief from evil men to God.

But it is really an easy mistake. I come from the same tradition as you and read into Scripture our (your current, my former) tradition. It is a part of our worldview.

Thankfully there is a movement within Reformed Theology to turn from tradition and turn to the Bible on this issue. When they do it will affect other doctrines that depend on the theory.

 

This is how Atonement is described in God's Word (a short summary).

Through Adam's transgression mankind was sold into slavery. God told Adam the Serpent would strike the heel of the Messiah but the Messiah would crush the head of the Serpent.

God gave Israel the Law, which included a manifestation of His righteousness (the standard by which man would be righteous). Man fails to meet the standard.

In His forbearance God set up a sacrifice system to "cover" human sin. This pointed to what would occur at the cross. Men would kill a sacrificial animal. This was God's will.

God sent His Son as a sin offering. Jesus suffered and died at the hands of wicked men. The World had its "victory" as the World's "justice" was poured out on Jesus.

But this was also God's will. It pleased God to crush Him as this was God's redemptive plan.

God forsook His Son to suffer and die at the hands of the World, at the hands of evil men, under the bondage of Satan...of sin and death. He shared our iniquity. He bore our sins, was made sin for us.

But God vindicated Jesus and raised Him on the 3rd day. The Serpent strook His heel, but He crushed the Serpent's head. He won the victory, freeing us from the bonds that held man captive.

 

It is never a good idea to thumb through different English translations until you find one that fits your theory.

The Lord was pleased to crush Him. This was God's plan. But I join 1,500 years of Christianity that was here before Penal Substitution Theory in rejecting the idea that God inflicted suffering on Christ. It was, however, God's will that Chriat suffer and die at the hands of evil men, under the powers of darkness.

It is ironic that so much of Calvinism depends on Augustine (Augustine....who believed the idea Christ's death appeased God).

 

Yes.

This was the case with me. The morning after I had preached a sermon I awoke with a conviction that I was wrong - that I was influenced by traditional over Scripture. I went through Scripture over the next months and realized there is not even one passage that confirms Penal Substitution Theory.

It was difficult to set aside my presuppositions and not read tradition into Scripture. But once I was able I realized Scripture is very clear without adding to it.

The earliest understanding, i.e., the actual text of Scripture, is sufficient. But it is too simple for many to accept. To them it is foolishness.

I suspect older adults will resist seeking out God's Word for what it actually says. They are far too invested.

But once we move past the false doctrine of Penal Substitution Theory so much of God's Word opens up.

 

That is foolishness. The Father offered His Son as a sin offering, He vindicated His Son.

Penal Substitution Theory has God vindicating Christ from His own actions (essentially calling God evil).

Try reading Scripture for what it says rather than twisting it to match your traditions.

There is a little too much Roman Catholicism in you, @Aaron .

 

It is in the sence they are leaving Calvinism, but they don't realize this.

Once they abandon the error then Calvinism crumbles (it is based on philosophy...remove the secular humanism and you pull the rug out from under Calvinism).

 

No, it is a denial of secular philosophy and an affirmation of Scripture.

Sin is against God. But all judgment is given to the Son. This Calvinism does not understand. We are freed from the bondage of sin and death by Christ's work....by the Cross.

Christ did not die to take care of sins against the world. Nobody believes otherwise. Yours is a strawman objection.

 

I disagree. We constantly test our doctrine.

I learned a lot of truth from Calvinism. That is why God led me there. But Christians continue to learn and God continues to lead. I am grateful He showed me the error in Calvinistic philosophy but I am also grateful He used the system to teach me.

Eat the meat, spit out the bones. But don't stop eating the spiritual meat of God's truth. Don't put on the breaks on God's leading.

 

We agree on a lot, disagree on a lot as well. But that is why I am here - to learn of others and present my own beliefs.

I appreciate that we can continue to disagree as friends. I know you argue against me gor my benefit, and I'm sure ypu know I argue against you for yours.

I encourage you to prayerfully re-examine your beliefs against the written Word of God. You call my view secular projection, and I call yours philosophical additions.

But if you notice, my belief on this subject is what has been recorded in Scripture while yours is what ypu brlueve Scripture teaches. Thay is a huge difference.

If Scripture makes sense without adding to it, then I believe Scripture is teaching exactly what is written.


Lastly, as an encouragement to revisit the issue, I will add that the idea Christ's death was to appease God, that Chriat experienced God's wrath, was foreign to Christianity for the first 1,500 years of the Church. Not only is it not in the text of Scripture but believing it is what Scripture taught is relatively new.

This is why we can read of men like Augustine declaring even the idea that Christ's death appeased God would be a strong heresy.

I will continue to re-examine my views, and will save your responses to look over again. I hope you are able to do the same.

Take care, Brother.