Featured What is Penal Substitution Atonement

I would just like to add that while I do not see jesus death in the place of the lost in hell, as His death benefits only the Elect in regards to salvation, he would have suffered in the same way as the lost do in hell while upon the cross, as he faced what we all should have faced!
And Turretin is top notch for theology!

 

Think Calvin and Turretin got it more right than Luther did!

 

The entire OT sacrifical system was PST to its very core, was it not?

 

Well, they were both 5 pointers, just of the ole "free will" variety!

 

In some fashion, Jesus did really experience being forsaken and being judged by God for the behalf of us!

 

How many of them were calvinists?

 

The Law of God does not have an alternative consequence other than penal consequences for violating its standard. The wages of sin is death. That is the penal consequence for condemnation under law. Nowhere does scripture prescribe an alternative consequence or an alternative payment for sins. Jon's position rests entirely upon an alternative satisfaction for violation of God's Law. Unless there is an alternative consequence for sin clearly justified in scripture, it is foolish to claim that Christ paid for our sins other than according to the penal consequence that is demanded - death. Nowhere does the Scripture restrict "death" to mere physical death. Gehenna is reserved for beings whose whole person is at enmity with God thus confining their hatred to a restricted place while suffering separation from God.Christs person is not at enmity with God and therefore such a restricted place is unnecessary while the suffering of separation from God took place in the body on the cross as that was the actual cause of the "travail of his soul" that satisfied the Father. The union between his humanity and deity within one body "satisfied" the Father with regard to the eternity of the penalty as he encompasses eternity.

 

Christ was MADE TO BE SIN in the very same judicial sense we are MADE RIGHTEOUS in the eyes of God - imputation -2 Cor 5:21.

The "travail of his soul" (Isa. 53:11) judicially satisfied God's wrath against sin as a direct consequence of being judicially made "an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10)

Death is not the natural consequence of pre-fallen man but the explicitly stated consequence of sin directly addressed to the pre-fallen man (Gen. 2:17). Death "entered the world" not through the creation of life, but with the advent of sin (Rom. 5:12). Death is "the wages of sin" (Rom.6:23) rather than the natural consequence of life.

Theological positions that deny these explicit and essential points of Biblical doctrine are heretical and logically repudiate the Biblical framework of the atonement.

 

False! The OT Priests did see the "offering for sin" that pictured DEATH of the substitute in the place of God's people on the day of atonement, as that is precisely why they laid hands on the head of the sacrifice while confessing THEIR sins over it - thus in type transferring the penalty of their sins to that of the TYPE which signified what they KNEW (Acts 10:43) Christ would fulfill in his own person (Heb. 10:1-18).

 

Moreover, in the judicial context of being "justified before God" the term "reckoned" in Romans 4 does refer to imputation of righteousness that faith embraces rather than impartation of righteousness.

 

They KNEW the death of the sacrifice was PENAL and SUBSTITUTIONARY or IN THEIR PLACE because the Prophets told them (Acts 10:43 "all" inclusive of Abel, Heb.11:4, Enoch, Noah, Moses, etc.) and the prophets spelled it out in no uncertain terms (Isa. 53:1-11).

 

Another common error is to argue that God's people did not realize the typology based upon the current generation living in Christ's day as they had been dumbified by tradition and hardened against the truth so they could not see (Jn. 12) what previous generation could and did see and understand. The Levites did understand the penal substitutionary nature of the sacrificial system during the time of Moses (Lev. 10:10) and taught the people with clarity as did Isaiah during his generation. There was always a "remnant" according to election that did understand and did believe in the gospel.

 

The Beauty of Calvin's viewpoint though was that he was NOT imposing what the 16th century viewed it as being, but was very consistent to what the Ot/Jesus and paul all saw it as being!

 

Calvin though was basing his understanding on how the scriptures themselves, especially in the teachings of both Jesus and Paul!

 

Oxymoronic! On one hand you admit the Priest did see it substitutionary for sin ("sin offering") and then on the other hand you think it might have been a substitution for something other than man or something less than penal, maybe a substitute for a tea party or a batter for baseball???? You have just emptied the word "substitute" of any meaning with regard to the obvious meaning "in the place of" with regard to the penal consequences of sin - death. Your denying mere common sense in denying the priest did not realize it was substitution for death as a penal consequence. Your problem is that your theology is determined by traditions not by scripture. They obviously saw the animal being punished with death in the place of man as the animal was a "sin offering" and that substituionary penal character is fully described in Isaiah 53 in language you must explain away- end of story. The Father "laid on him" our iniquities, and the Father is the one that must be "satisfied" in the travail of his soul. It is penal and it is substitutionary and it is for sinners and the Christ was the recognized antitype as even John the Baptist said "the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world."