The most interesting thing to me (about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) is that it is not actually in the Bible. There are many passages about the consequences of sin and the wrath from which we escape, and of Christ as the "last Adam" and our representative, of Him bearing our iniquity, of our healing by His suffering, ect.
But everyone agrees those elements (those passages) exist.
When Christians reject or accept Penal Substitution Theory it is because of how they (or an influencer) has woven those passages into a larger narrative - not becauseof Scripture.
I do not know that I can agree with @Van about the Theory being a Trojan horse for limited atonement (but there was a time when Penal Substitution was unique to Calvinism/ Reformed Theology). I can see that Reformed Theology depends on the Penal Substitution Theory (and most likely is its logical conclusion).
3 Reasons I changed my mind about Penal Substitution
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Revmitchell, Mar 31, 2021.
Page 2 of 9
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
And yet Jesus Himself fully agreed to it from eternity past! -
-
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
-
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? -
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
-
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 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. -
That is why other views exist. They meet the criteria of a Holy God justifying sinners. They are not all correct, but we'd not need to demonize other views simply because we reject them. -
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
-
When I teach I use the HCS because that is what the reference materials the class uses has. Not my favorite, but not bad either.
There are no translations that I know of which teach the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. The actual translations are the verses. I think what you are speaking of are "study bibkes" and yes, they do teach Penal Substitution Theory. BUT those are commentary sections (like the MacArthur Study Bible) telling you what to believe about passages. Those commentaries are not inspired Scripture.
This is one reason I do not like "Study Bibles". Sometimes people give the commentator too much credit because it's "in the Bible". -
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
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 -
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
Page 2 of 9