If you deny PSA, you have become an OT Jew.

[TomL]

It doesn’t

no it doesn't

FYI I was without internet a couple of days. An ISP junction box required repair

 

[civic]

Those scriptures don't prove anything.

ditto

 

[TomL]

Romans 5:6-11 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person---though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die---but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, nush ore shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Col 2:13-15 And you, who were dead in yur tresspasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him.

2 Cor 5:21 For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Is 53
Surely you do not believe that God simply granted forgiveness because Jesus died on the cross, without that death having actually done something regarding sin. To think so is to make the entire process of redemption through the death of Christ unnecessary. And if it is doing something necessary concerning sin it can only be satisfying His just decree that the soul who sins shall die.

Christ provided a substitute for punishment

 

[civic]

PSA is not Calvinist vs Arminian. It is embraced by the majority of BOTH sides (today). It is more of a HISTORIC evolution of thought on WHY behind the facts of the Atonement.

(It just STARTED roughly around the Reformation from the earlier RANSOM theory - which had different problems).

Agreed but it originated during the reformation period.

 

[TomL]

PSA is not Calvinist vs Arminian. It is embraced by the majority of BOTH sides (today). It is more of a HISTORIC evolution of thought on WHY behind the facts of the Atonement.

(It just STARTED roughly around the Reformation from the earlier RANSOM theory - which had different problems).

Actually it was invented by reformed sources

 

[TomL]

If God can forgive without "wrath" and "punishment," the death of Jesus was in no way necessary nor related to forgiveness.

If you deny Jesus' suffered the punishment of your sins, you don't believe the death of Jesus holds any logical connection or significance to removing sins.

If you think God can punish God, God can forsake God and that the son can be merciful and forgiving while the father must be retributively just you do not understand the trinity

 

[civic]

If you think God can punish God, God can forsake God and that the son can be merciful and forgiving while the father must be retributively just you do not understand the trinity

Talk about an oxymoron

 

[atpollard]

And if it is doing something necessary concerning sin it can only be satisfying His just decree that the soul who sins shall die.

... but the soul who sinned still died. It is the SECOND DEATH that we escape. Go look up the context of the verse you quote from: the PEOPLE (whom God called UNJUST) wanted to kill someone else (an innocent child) for the sin of another (a guilty parent). This is EXACTLY what you are arguing God MUST have done based on that partial verse quoted out of context.

God responded to those people that is not GOD's way ... only the GUILTY suffer the punishment for their sin (and only if they will not repent). The INNOCENT must never suffer the punishment for the guilty (God abhors such a thing), and God is willing to forgive (to remember no more).

Look instead to John 3 and the reference to the story of Moses and the bronze serpent. It was SIN JUDGED (condemned) that Christ took to that cross and "cursed" forever. God cursed the curse. God slayed death. In Himself - by His blood - at the hands of evil men. CHRISTUS VICTOR (Christ Victorius)! Jesus died to accomplish EXACTLY what He did accomplish ... no more and no less.

If you want to apply an OT verse to pluck from its context and apply to the Cross ... [Genesis 50:20 NLT] "You intended to harm me, but God intended it all for good. He brought me to this position so I could save the lives of many people."

 

[TomL]

Talk about an oxymoron

Yep

PSA brings major problems for the doctrine of the trinity

 

[praise_yeshua]

... but the soul who sinned still died. It is the SECOND DEATH that we escape. Go look up the context of the verse you quote from: the PEOPLE (whom God called UNJUST) wanted to kill someone else (an innocent child) for the sin of another (a guilty parent). This is EXACTLY what you are arguing God MUST have done based on that partial verse quoted out of context.

God responded to those people that is not GOD's way ... only the GUILTY suffer the punishment for their sin (and only if they will not repent). The INNOCENT must never suffer the punishment for the guilty (God abhors such a thing), and God is willing to forgive (to remember no more).

Look instead to John 3 and the reference to the story of Moses and the bronze serpent. It was SIN JUDGED (condemned) that Christ took to that cross and "cursed" forever. God cursed the curse. God slayed death. In Himself - by His blood - at the hands of evil men. CHRISTUS VICTOR (Christ Victorius)! Jesus died to accomplish EXACTLY what He did accomplish ... no more and no less.

If you want to apply an OT verse to pluck from its context and apply to the Cross ... [Genesis 50:20 NLT] "You intended to harm me, but God intended it all for good. He brought me to this position so I could save the lives of many people."

So Christ served sin?

Christ served us, not sin.

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Deu 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Deu 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
Deu 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
Deu 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

[atpollard]

Actually it was invented by reformed sources

So was Arminianism ... does that make SYNERGYSM a part of the reformation?
You are conflating temporal concurrence with theological causation.
PRINTING was also concurrent with the Protestant Reformation, does that make REFORMED THEOLOGY responsible for mass literacy?

 

[TomL]

So was Arminianism ... does that make SYNERGYSM a part of the reformation?
You are conflating temporal concurrence with theological causation.
PRINTING was also concurrent with the Protestant Reformation, does that make REFORMED THEOLOGY responsible for mass literacy?

No PSA is built around the idea of a commercial exchange.

Christ pays the penalty for sin

those he paid the penalty for receive righteousness

it is design to match a limited atonement

why do you think Calvinist always argue against unlimited atonement with the double payment argument

 

[atpollard]

why do you think Calvinist always argue against unlimited atonement with the double payment argument

Because the UNLIMITED ATONEMENT argument uses the same analogy of Jesus PAYING for the sin of all and people REFUSING the gift of His payment. You are making a distinction without a difference! Both are based on PSA and PAYMENT. Frankly, most PRE-REFORMATION theology is based on PAYMENT as well ... a RANSOM is paid to someone, too.

You are laying at the feet of the Reformation a school of thought that is not unique to them, nor one that originates with them. They just changed the terms of the analogy from God paying Satan [ransom] to God paying God [Penal Substitution] ... both of which have scant Biblical support to build from ... and it actually pre-dates the Reformation. The Calvinists and Arminians both just embraced PSA over the other atonement theories.

 

[civic]

Because the UNLIMITED ATONEMENT argument uses the same analogy of Jesus PAYING for the sin of all and people REFUSING the gift of His payment. You are making a distinction without a difference! Both are based on PSA and PAYMENT. Frankly, most PRE-REFORMATION theology is based on PAYMENT as well ... a RANSOM is paid to someone, too.

You are laying at the feet of the Reformation a school of thought that is not unique to them, nor one that originates with them. They just changed the terms of the analogy from God paying Satan [ransom] to God paying God [Penal Substitution] ... both of which have scant Biblical support to build from ... and it actually pre-dates the Reformation. The Calvinists and Arminians both just embraced PSA over the other atonement theories.

I’ll take PSA minus the penal/ wrath aspect. @armylngst and I over time have come to an agreement in that aspect. But that took lots of exchanges between us to bring clarity on the position in light of the Trinity.

 

[atpollard]

I’ll take PSA minus the penal/ wrath aspect. @armylngst and I over time have come to an agreement in that aspect. But that took lots of exchanges between us to bring clarity on the position in light of the Trinity.

That's the hard part of it. The WORDS are all correct ... There was a PENALTY (Penal) ... there was a SUBSTITUTE (Substitution) ... there was an ATONEMENT (Atonement) ... and it is not just MY saying so; those terms are all used by the Biblical Authors about what Christ did.

There is an old adage ... "how much poison spoils a good meal?"
So how much ERROR does it require to poison a Good Truth?

I know when I sit and listen to a pastor expound on how terrible the suffering of Christ was and every Lash was a Lash that I should have gotten but He took in my place ... there is some poison in my meal.

 

[TomL]

Because the UNLIMITED ATONEMENT argument uses the same analogy of Jesus PAYING for the sin of all and people REFUSING the gift of His payment. You are making a distinction without a difference! Both are based on PSA and PAYMENT. Frankly, most PRE-REFORMATION theology is based on PAYMENT as well ... a RANSOM is paid to someone, too.

You are laying at the feet of the Reformation a school of thought that is not unique to them, nor one that originates with them. They just changed the terms of the analogy from God paying Satan [ransom] to God paying God [Penal Substitution] ... both of which have scant Biblical support to build from ... and it actually pre-dates the Reformation. The Calvinists and Arminians both just embraced PSA over the other atonement theories.

No they all don't. However PSA was designed around a reformed Calvinist worldview and ransom is a separate atonement held by the early church fathers. There are a number of particulars in PSA which did not exist is the early theories the fathers held.

 

[atpollard]

No they all don't. However PSA was designed around a reformed Calvinist worldview and ransom is a separate atonement held by the early church fathers. There are a number of particulars in PSA which did not exist is the early theories the fathers held.

Here you go ... the HISTORIC FACTS ... have at them: Penal substitutionary atonement in the Church Fathers

 

[TomL]

Here you go ... the HISTORIC FACTS ... have at them: Penal substitutionary atonement in the Church Fathers

Sorry you are reading facts from other atonement theories as though they refered to PSA

If you want to prove PSA you need to show

1 double imputation
2 Christ actually imputed with all the sin of the world
3 God unable to forgive sin but must be retributively just
4 Christ had to reconcile God
5 Christ was saving us from God
6 God poured his wrath out on Christ
7 God forsook Christ on the cross causing a separation in the godhead

or

 

[atpollard]

If you want to prove PSA you need to show

I don't want to prove a theory I don't ascribe to ... I lean towards Christus Victor.

I am simply opposed to Revisionist History and to demonizing Reformed Theology for everything up to and including the Hole in the Ozone and Climate Change. [that was hyperbole ... given your record with the facts, I felt I should make that clear.]

However, your OPINIONS aside: a peer reviewed theology journal published an article quoting the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS from a Master's Thesis that offers argument that there was discussion of a payment for sin to God made LONG before any great grandfather of a great grandfather of a Reformer was born. As I STATED (and you ignored) the idea of the Atonement as a Substitutionary Payment to God for Our Sin predates the Protestant Reformation ... by a LOT. The Reformers just embraced THAT existing theory over all other competing theories.

 

[atpollard]

double imputation

2 Co 5:21 [YLT] for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.

Unless you have some strange definition of your own, this one looks BIBLICAL to me (irrespective of PSA) ... there was an "imputation" from man to Christ and an "imputation" from Christ to man ... found in the words "make/become" in YLT Bible.