The 10 most Commonly referred to points against PSA
- Thread starter Bronson
- Start date
atpollard
Well-known member
Are WE to be incapable of forgiving until WE have been appeased … like our Father? [Luke 6:28-29]
Wrath is STORED UP for the Day of Wrath [Romans 2:5], when it is delivered upon UNREPENTANT sinners [Revelation 19:15]. For US, “there is no judgement” [John 3:18] … not “Jesus took YOUR beating”.
It is not rocket science or logic, it is scripture.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Please read me loud and clear.
WE are not God. We are NOT God! We are not thrice holy infinitely pure Creators of all things, the fullness of value.
If God declares all must worship him, does that mean being "like" God is declaring all must worship us?!
God has power and authority and position no creation has.
This is man-centered objections—"you thought I was altogether like you."
Some believers need to put God back on the throne.
The Law brings wrath.
Except.
Nope, not when Jesus takes my place?
What you are doing is not logic, nor is it Scripture.
It's neutering the atonement and de-fanging the justice of God.
atpollard
Well-known member
That was not the question.
Does God hold US to a standard of JUSTICE higher than His own or is God’s JUSTICE even more JUST than He commands of us?
atpollard
Well-known member
[Rom 4:15 NKJV] 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
[Rom 8:2 NKJV] 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
"Jesus" AND "takes" AND "place"
occurs 0 time in 0 verse in the NKJV.
Nope.
The ATONEMENT stands intact (Jesus died so that we could live, just like the Bible says)
- [John 10:11 NKJV] "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.”
- [John 3:14-18 NKJV] 14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
- [Rom 9:15 NKJV] For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Not sure if this is what you're talking about, but Matthew 5 demonstrates that even the law is watered down compared to God's idea of righteousness. So TRUE justice would convict those who even look at a woman with lust, or those who get angry with their brother, etc. Following the law perfectly, even if it was possible to do so, would not make one righteous and free from judgement.
atpollard
Well-known member
I agree.
Does that same “divine amplifier” apply to LOVE and FORGIVENESS the way it applies to RIGHTEOUSNESS?
- Is God’s love more than our love?
- Is God’s forgiveness more than our forgiveness?
civic
Well-known member
Amen
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Without a doubt.
atpollard
Well-known member
I am not an expert, but I think so.
I would have chosen ANNIHILATION, God chose “Hell” (for His enemies).
Johann
Well-known member
Just one problem--
--his criticism, the accusation that penal substitution is tantamount to child
abuse, a charge levelled by some feminist theologians and taken up by Steve
Chalke?
38 The claim appears to be that the infliction of pain on a child by
a parent is unjust, and that penal substitution mandates such infliction.
There is an immediate problem here with the criticism, namely that when
the Lord Jesus Christ died he was a child in the sense that he was a son, but
not in the sense that he was a minor.
As an adult, he had a mature will and
could choose whether or not to cooperate with his Father.
So we are in fact
looking at a father and an adult son who will together for the father to inflict
suffering on the son, as we have seen in our Trinitarian exposition.
But there is a major problem here for the critics of penal substitution.
While they have taken up and used the feminist critique of the cross as a
critique of penal substitution, that criticism originated as a critique not of
penal substitution but of the Christian doctrine of redemption generally.
It attacks the general idea that the Father willed the suffering of the Son, not
the specific idea that he willed the penal substitutionary suffering of the
Son. Here is the criticism, as found in the work of Joanne Carlson Brown
and Rebecca Parker:
The central image of Christ on the cross as the savior of the world communicates the message that suffering is redemptive. . . . The message is complicated
further by the theology that says Christ suffered in obedience to his Father’s
38 Chalke, “Cross Purposes” 47; Chalke and Mann, The Lost Message 182.
84 journal of the evangelical theological society
will.
Divine child abuse is paraded as salvific and the child who suffers “without
even raising a voice” is lauded as the hope of the world.39
Furthermore, it is evident that Brown and Parker attack, not just the idea
that Jesus was a passive sufferer, but even the idea that he was the active
subject of the cross, an idea Green and Baker endorse.
Brown and Parker
argue that if Jesus was active in accepting his suffering, then we have a
model of the victim of suffering being responsible for it, and that such a model
would mandate blaming victims.
They make this move when they criticize
Jürgen Moltman’s statement that Jesus suffered actively: “Jesus is responsible for his death on the cross, just as a woman who walks alone at night
on a deserted street is to blame when she is raped.”40
For many feminists their criticism results in the rejection of Christianity,
because the religion undeniably involves the idea that God purposed the sufferings of Christ.
Others try to rescue a reinvented theology, but the effort is
futile. In the end, if purposed redemptive suffering is regarded as unacceptable, Christianity has to go. The reason is that the child abuse problem, as
understood by these feminist theologians, remains with any model of the
atonement that maintains divine sovereignty, even in a limited form. Unless
we remove the suffering of the Son from the realm of events over which God
rules, then God wills it. A similar point is made by Hans Boersma:
Only by radically limiting Christ’s redemptive role to his life (so that his life
becomes an example to us) or by absolutely dissociating God from any role in
the cross (turning the crucifixion into a solely human act) can we somehow avoid
dealing with the difficulty of divine violence.41
Hence there is a trajectory from unease with penal substitution to a denial
of the sovereign rule of God over the cross, and thence, we may presume, the
world. In the more frank writers, this trajectory emerges clearly. J. Denny
Weaver, for example, in arguing for a non-violent view of the atonement
which he terms “narrative Christus Victor,” sees that to succeed he must
remove the cross from the plan and purpose of God. He explains that Jesus
was not sent with the intention that he should die, that his death was not
the will of God, and that it was neither required nor desired by God:
In narrative Christus Victor, Jesus’ mission is certainly not about tricking the
devil.
Neither did the Father send him for the specific purpose of dying, nor was
his mission about death. . . . And since Jesus’ mission was to make the reign
of God visible, his death was not the will of God as it would be if it is a debt
payment owed to God. In narrative Christus Victor, the death of Jesus is clearly
the responsibility of the forces of evil, and it is not needed by or aimed at God.42
Yet in terms of the metaphysics of the divine relationship with creation,
even this view is unsustainable. So long as God sustains the world in which
39 Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker, “For God So Loved the World?,” in Christianity,
Patriarchy, and Abuse: A Feminist Critique (ed. Joannne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn;
New York: Pilgrim, 1989) 1–30 (p. 2). 40 Ibid. 18. 41 Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004) 41; cf. p. 117. 42 J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 132.
One Line Long
penal substitution: a response to recent criticisms 85
the Son suffers, then in a strong sense he wills the suffering of the Son. If
he does not stop history as the first blow is about to be struck, then he wills
that the Son suffers. There is something that prevents him from intervening
to rescue his beloved Son, some purpose he intends to achieve through the
suffering, and therefore a strong sense in which even such a diminished god
as Weaver’s wills the suffering. If someone else had wrested from God his
work in sustaining the world, if we lived and moved and had our being elsewhere, then perhaps we could say that God did not will the suffering of the
Son. But if purposed redemptive suffering is problematic, then on any view
where God maintains some kind of control of his creation, even in a limited
fashion at arm’s length, the feminist criticism finds its target. And that target
is not just penal substitution.
We therefore need to ask about the criticism itself. Is it valid? It is evidently not so with regard to penal substitutionary atonement. According to
penal substitution, the cross does not have the character simply of suffering,
but of necessary penal suffering for a good end. It is in this sense violent, but
not reducible to the single category of violence. The cross was violent, but
there was more to it than merely an act of violence. We can understand this
if we consider scenarios in which a father and his adult son together purpose
that the son should suffer. Imagine, for example, the father who directs teams
of Médecins Sans Frontières, sending his son into an area where he and the
son know that the son may suffer greatly. The father wills to send the son,
and the son wills to go. There is no injustice here, because the purpose is
good and both parties are willing. The same applies in the case of penal substitution. In fact, the feminist criticism really only applies when we deny
penal substitution, because it is then that we are in danger of denying the
necessity of the suffering of the Son. According to penal substitution the
necessity of punishment arises from God’s own nature and his divine government. He is bound only by who he is, by faithfulness to himself.43 On the
other hand, if we opt for some kind of voluntarist account wherein the suffering of the Son is not a necessity arising from divine justice, then we are
left with a very difficult question, in fact with the feminists’ question at its
most acute. If God can freely remit sins, we must ask, why did the Father send
the Son purposing his death, as Acts 2:23 says? The more deeply we understand the Trinity, the love of the Father for the Son, the more we will ask why
a loving Father would lay the burden of suffering on his eternally beloved
Son. Penal substitution preserves a necessity, which alone explains why this
needed to happen as part of God’s saving plan. Remove the necessity, deny
penal substitution, and then the suffering of the Son is unjustifiable. The
feminists’ criticism attains its full force, because the Father wills the suffering of the Son for no necessary reason.
Christus Victor, for example, taken by itself without penal substitution,
does not explain why Christ needed to suffer like this. Deny penal substitution
43 Contra Green and Baker: “Within a penal substitution model, God’s ability to love and relate
to humans is circumscribed by something outside of God—that is, an abstract concept of justice
instructs God as to how God must behave” (Recovering 147).
86 journal of the evangelical theological society
and Christus Victor is hamstrung. Hence it is that in Col 2:13–15 the victory
over the rulers and authorities is accomplished by forensic means, by the
cancellation of the legal bond (ceirovgrafon; Col 2:14). Victory is understood
by Paul in legal terms. Penal substitution is central because of its explanatory power with regard to the justice of the other models of the atonement.
Note that such a claim affirms rather than denies the existence of other
models, but it also affirms the centrality of penal substitutionary atonement
to them. Without penal substitution, the feminists who reject Christianity
are right that the Father has no sufficient reason to inflict suffering on the
Son. A cross without penal substitution therefore would indeed mandate the
unjustified infliction of suffering on children, because it would have no basis
in justice.
Johann
Well-known member
So, conclusion @atpollard
It is no exaggeration to say that proponents of penal substitution are
currently charged with advocating a biblically unfounded, systematically misleading, and pastorally lethal doctrine. If the attack is simply on a caricature
of the doctrine, all well and good. Then the way forward is simple: the critics
need to say that they do believe in penal substitution itself and just not in
warped forms of it. But if the accusation is indeed an accusation against
penal substitution itself, as it surely is, then I fear that evangelicals in the
UK Alliance and elsewhere cannot simply carry on as they are. I am mindful both of the injunctions of the Lord Jesus Christ to seek peace, and of the
ways in which he and his apostles make clear that there are issues over
which division is necessary. Does not the present debate over penal substitutionary atonement fall into this category of issues that require separation?
I find it impossible to agree with those who maintain that the debate is just
an intramural one which can be conducted within the evangelical family. It
is hard to maintain this when it has been acknowledged by all parties that
we are arguing about who God is, about the creedal doctrine of the Trinity,
about the consequences of sin, about how we are saved, and about views which
are held to encourage the abuse of women and children. So long as these
issues are the issues, and I believe that they have been rightly identified,
then I cannot see how those who disagree can remain allied together without
placing unity above truths which are undeniably central to the Christian faith.
It is no exaggeration to say that proponents of penal substitution are
currently charged with advocating a biblically unfounded, systematically misleading, and pastorally lethal doctrine. If the attack is simply on a caricature
of the doctrine, all well and good. Then the way forward is simple: the critics
need to say that they do believe in penal substitution itself and just not in
warped forms of it. But if the accusation is indeed an accusation against
penal substitution itself, as it surely is, then I fear that evangelicals in the
UK Alliance and elsewhere cannot simply carry on as they are. I am mindful both of the injunctions of the Lord Jesus Christ to seek peace, and of the
ways in which he and his apostles make clear that there are issues over
which division is necessary. Does not the present debate over penal substitutionary atonement fall into this category of issues that require separation?
I find it impossible to agree with those who maintain that the debate is just
an intramural one which can be conducted within the evangelical family. It
is hard to maintain this when it has been acknowledged by all parties that
we are arguing about who God is, about the creedal doctrine of the Trinity,
about the consequences of sin, about how we are saved, and about views which
are held to encourage the abuse of women and children. So long as these
issues are the issues, and I believe that they have been rightly identified,
then I cannot see how those who disagree can remain allied together without
placing unity above truths which are undeniably central to the Christian faith.
Johann
Well-known member
In addition, the Levitical system of animal sacrifices required the death of an animal for sin. The Hebrew and the LXX supported by NT citations back up this concept of judicial punishment for sin. Twelve principles governed the offering of OT sacrifices that pertained to the corporate worship of Israel. Several OT texts illustrate penal substitutionary sacrifices in the OT.
The first is the Passover of Exodus 12 in which God graciously spared guilty Israelites through the deaths of animals substituted for the firstborn in each household. Another OT text to illustrate penal substitution is Leviticus 16, the institution of the Day of Atonement.
The scapegoat symbolized the removal of Israel’s sin to allow people to enter the presence of a holy God.
The Day of Atonement expiated the
nation’s sins, cleansed the sanctuary from sin’s pollution, and removed sins from thecommunity. Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is a third text to illustrate penal substitution. The suffering servant of the LORD.
In this section clearly anticipates the Messiah’s coming substitutionary death as penalty for His people’s sins. The OT sacrificial system clearly laid the basis for penal substitution in awaiting Israel’s coming Messiah.
Johann
Well-known member
@dizerner --
The OT points toward substitutionary atonement.
In the OT, an innocent animal was substituted for the sin of the people (Lev. 4, 16). Isaiah writes, “He [Jesus] was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). Erickson explains this OT concept of atonement:
The Hebrew word most commonly used in the Old Testament for the various types of atonement is כָּפַר (kaphar) and its derivatives. The word literally means “to cover.” One was delivered from punishment by the interposing of something between one’s sin and God. God then saw the atoning sacrifice rather than the sin. The covering of the sin meant that the penalty no longer had to be exacted from the sinner.[13]
The NT authors use this OT terminology to describe Christ’s substitionary work (1 Pet. 2:24; 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10). While the Passover lamb died in the place of the Israelites in Egypt (Ex. 12), Paul writes, “Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). When he first saw Jesus, John the Baptist said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn. 1:29) Paul refers to Jesus’ death as “an offering for sin” (Rom. 8:3), couching this verse in OT sacrificial imagery.
The concept of the blessings and cursings comes from the OT, where God would judge or bless Israel based on their obedience to his law (Lev. 26; Deut. 28). Paul writes that Christ became the curse for us, and he gave us his rightful blessing (Gal. 3:13).
Finally, when we consider the entire context of Hebrews 9 specifically (vv.16-28), we see that this discussion is framed in the OT sacrificial system, where an innocent animal was forgiven for the sins of the people. The NT authors framed these other passages in an OT context as well (Jn. 1:29; Mt. 26:28), making the OT sacrificial system the proper context in which we should understand the atonement.[14]
REASON #3: The NT claims that substitutionary atonement is the primary—though not exclusive—way that we should understand the Cross.
Paul says that he delivered the message of the gospel to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:1-2), and he explained the message that was of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). His language does not refer to the order of speech (i.e. “this is the first thing I need to say…”). Instead, “first importance” refers to the primacy of this doctrine (i.e. “this is at the top of the list…”).[15] There are a number of reasons for affirming substitutionary atonement:
1. The Bible affirms that sinful humans get their righteousness from Christ.
(2 Cor. 5:21) He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(1 Pet. 3:18) For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.
(Phil. 3:8b-9) That I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.
(Rom. 5:19) For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
(Rom. 3:25-26) God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(1 Pet 2:24) He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
2. The NT ascribes the blood of Christ as the means through which we have peace with God.
(Rom. 3:25) God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
(Rom. 5:9) Having now been justified by His blood.
(Eph. 1:7) In Him we have redemption through His blood.
(Eph. 2:13) In Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
(Col. 1:20) Through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
(Mt. 26:28) This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
3. Christ died for human beings as a substitute for our sin. The Reformers called this The Great Exchange: We give Christ our sin, and he gives us his righteousness. The word “justification” (Greek dikaiosis) is a legal term, referring to being declared judicially not guilty. Paul writes, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). Earlier in Romans, Paul argued that as sinful people, our “condemnation is just” (Rom. 3:8) and sin results “in condemnation” (Rom. 5:16; c.f. v.18). However, by virtue of the Cross, we have “no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1).
(1 Thess. 5:10) [Christ] died for us.
(Rom. 8:32) He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all.
(2 Cor. 5:14) [Christ] died for all.
(Eph. 5:2) Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us.
(Gal. 1:4a) [Jesus] gave Himself for our sins…
(Rom. 4:25) He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
(Rom. 5:8-9) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
4. The NT affirms that Christ’s death was a substitutionary ransom. Jesus said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). Erickson explains that the concept of “ransom” implies a substitute and payment. He writes, “The word λύτρον (lutron—‘ransom’) with its cognates is used nearly 140 times in the Septuagint, usually with the thought of deliverance from some sort of bondage in exchange for the payment of compensation or the offering of a substitute.”[16] Of course, Christ saw himself as a substitute for us (Jn. 15:13).
5. Jesus viewed his work as completed on the Cross. Before he died, he said, “It is finished!” (Jn. 19:30) Of course, if Jesus’ atonement continued after his death, what was “finished” at the Cross?
In addition to these passages, the gospels emphasize the death of Christ through selective history. We know virtually nothing about the childhood of Jesus, but we know considerable details about his death. In fact, much of the Gospel of John (Jn. 13-19) focuses on the last day of Jesus’ earthly life. Why would these authors spill so much ink over the Passion Week, unless this was theologically significant?
For these reasons, we hold that penal substitutionary atonement makes the most sense of the biblical data on the Cross.
The OT points toward substitutionary atonement.
In the OT, an innocent animal was substituted for the sin of the people (Lev. 4, 16). Isaiah writes, “He [Jesus] was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). Erickson explains this OT concept of atonement:
The Hebrew word most commonly used in the Old Testament for the various types of atonement is כָּפַר (kaphar) and its derivatives. The word literally means “to cover.” One was delivered from punishment by the interposing of something between one’s sin and God. God then saw the atoning sacrifice rather than the sin. The covering of the sin meant that the penalty no longer had to be exacted from the sinner.[13]
The NT authors use this OT terminology to describe Christ’s substitionary work (1 Pet. 2:24; 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10). While the Passover lamb died in the place of the Israelites in Egypt (Ex. 12), Paul writes, “Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). When he first saw Jesus, John the Baptist said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn. 1:29) Paul refers to Jesus’ death as “an offering for sin” (Rom. 8:3), couching this verse in OT sacrificial imagery.
The concept of the blessings and cursings comes from the OT, where God would judge or bless Israel based on their obedience to his law (Lev. 26; Deut. 28). Paul writes that Christ became the curse for us, and he gave us his rightful blessing (Gal. 3:13).
Finally, when we consider the entire context of Hebrews 9 specifically (vv.16-28), we see that this discussion is framed in the OT sacrificial system, where an innocent animal was forgiven for the sins of the people. The NT authors framed these other passages in an OT context as well (Jn. 1:29; Mt. 26:28), making the OT sacrificial system the proper context in which we should understand the atonement.[14]
REASON #3: The NT claims that substitutionary atonement is the primary—though not exclusive—way that we should understand the Cross.
Paul says that he delivered the message of the gospel to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:1-2), and he explained the message that was of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). His language does not refer to the order of speech (i.e. “this is the first thing I need to say…”). Instead, “first importance” refers to the primacy of this doctrine (i.e. “this is at the top of the list…”).[15] There are a number of reasons for affirming substitutionary atonement:
1. The Bible affirms that sinful humans get their righteousness from Christ.
(2 Cor. 5:21) He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(1 Pet. 3:18) For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.
(Phil. 3:8b-9) That I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.
(Rom. 5:19) For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
(Rom. 3:25-26) God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(1 Pet 2:24) He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
2. The NT ascribes the blood of Christ as the means through which we have peace with God.
(Rom. 3:25) God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
(Rom. 5:9) Having now been justified by His blood.
(Eph. 1:7) In Him we have redemption through His blood.
(Eph. 2:13) In Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
(Col. 1:20) Through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
(Mt. 26:28) This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
3. Christ died for human beings as a substitute for our sin. The Reformers called this The Great Exchange: We give Christ our sin, and he gives us his righteousness. The word “justification” (Greek dikaiosis) is a legal term, referring to being declared judicially not guilty. Paul writes, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). Earlier in Romans, Paul argued that as sinful people, our “condemnation is just” (Rom. 3:8) and sin results “in condemnation” (Rom. 5:16; c.f. v.18). However, by virtue of the Cross, we have “no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1).
(1 Thess. 5:10) [Christ] died for us.
(Rom. 8:32) He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all.
(2 Cor. 5:14) [Christ] died for all.
(Eph. 5:2) Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us.
(Gal. 1:4a) [Jesus] gave Himself for our sins…
(Rom. 4:25) He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
(Rom. 5:8-9) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
4. The NT affirms that Christ’s death was a substitutionary ransom. Jesus said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). Erickson explains that the concept of “ransom” implies a substitute and payment. He writes, “The word λύτρον (lutron—‘ransom’) with its cognates is used nearly 140 times in the Septuagint, usually with the thought of deliverance from some sort of bondage in exchange for the payment of compensation or the offering of a substitute.”[16] Of course, Christ saw himself as a substitute for us (Jn. 15:13).
5. Jesus viewed his work as completed on the Cross. Before he died, he said, “It is finished!” (Jn. 19:30) Of course, if Jesus’ atonement continued after his death, what was “finished” at the Cross?
In addition to these passages, the gospels emphasize the death of Christ through selective history. We know virtually nothing about the childhood of Jesus, but we know considerable details about his death. In fact, much of the Gospel of John (Jn. 13-19) focuses on the last day of Jesus’ earthly life. Why would these authors spill so much ink over the Passion Week, unless this was theologically significant?
For these reasons, we hold that penal substitutionary atonement makes the most sense of the biblical data on the Cross.
atpollard
Well-known member
Respectfully, the criticisms and accusations of OTHERS are not my problem. I accused God of nothing. No such slander of God's character was directed to me. I do not even know OF Steve Chalke. I have merely requested some scripture that states or implies that the Father directed His wrath at the Son when scripture is so clear in other places that:
- God's wrath is directed against the sinful.
- God is "patient" and "stores" His wrath for a "Day of Wrath" (future).
- God simply "relents" of His wrath when men turn from evil and obey.
This question arose because I was TAUGHT PSA and believed it. Then one day, someone asked me where the Bible taught that? I knew it HAD to be in there and went searching for it. It was that search that forced me to conclude that the bible just doesn't teach that. Isaiah 53 is the closest it comes and that actually just says that PEOPLE believed that God had smitten Him ... which is true if you read the Gospel account. The PEOPLE believed that God was punishing Jesus for BLASPHEMY (we KNOW that the mockers were wrong).
I will be happy to embrace it ... PSA makes perfect sense. There just is no SCRIPTURE that actually supports the WRATH of the Father on the Son part of it ... so like the older "Ransom paid to the Devil" theory, it still needs work to be Scriptural. Until then ...
CHRISTUS VICTOR ... Jesus died to obtain the VICTORY that Scripture affirms that He obtained.
atpollard
Well-known member
A greater issue for the opponents of the Wrath of the Father poured on the Son is its eisegetical character ... demonstrated by all of the verses NOT PRESENTED in support of the WRATH of the Father poured out on any innocent, ever ... or any verse on the TRANSFER of wrath.
There is a "propitiation" ... a death that "purchased" us for the Father as "beloved children". An act of LOVE, not WRATH. An act of REDEMPTION, not APPEASEMENT.
Show me the scripture that teaches otherwise and I will embrace it!
SOLA SCRIPTURA ... the norma normans non normata ("the standard which is the standard for all other standards but is not itself subject to a higher standard".)
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
That is a good question. At times, Yes.
I believe the only reason that is true is due to the fact that God has the power to destroy.....
Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
I've been around "fear" preachers my entire life. Wrath is what drives fear......
However, John clearly said....
1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
1Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
In my opinion, it is fear that doomed Israel at the "Mount". God called Israel to Himself....... and they feared Him....
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
