Why we naturally HATE penal substitution

Dizerner said:
That's not how that works, lol.

God does not follow our rule set.

It's immoral for all things to worship you.

It's not immoral for all things to worship God.

See that?
Click to expand...
And Gods standard of justice in not how you perceive it to be as in PSA.

I’m glad you can see the difference
 
The penalty of sin in the garden was spiritual death. God's God can not be in the presence of sin, so in his perfect person. man was separated. a barrier was introduced.

call it Gods wrath, Gods justice. whatever you want (we all have different terms we use)

But the fact is, because of sin, we are all spiritually separated from god.

If we do not get this barrier removed, we will end up being separated forever (they call this hell)

in order for our relationship to be restored. Someone who is not guilty of the sin which separates us, must suffer this wage in our place

that's why Jesus had to be God. Only God can pay for an infinite amount of sin for an infinite amount of people.

How did Jesus pay?

Sin was placed on his body. when this happened. Jesus was separated from the father and the spirit (spiritual death)

now I personally would not call this Gods wrath, I would just call this that Jesus become the substitute, He died so we could be made alive.

the penalty of sin is death, in adam all die

so in christ shall all be made alive

how? he suffered the penalty we owe (death

ie, penal substitution.
 
Eternally-Grateful said:
The penalty of sin in the garden was spiritual death. God's God can not be in the presence of sin, so in his perfect person. man was separated. a barrier was introduced.

call it Gods wrath, Gods justice. whatever you want (we all have different terms we use)

But the fact is, because of sin, we are all spiritually separated from god.

If we do not get this barrier removed, we will end up being separated forever (they call this hell)

in order for our relationship to be restored. Someone who is not guilty of the sin which separates us, must suffer this wage in our place

that's why Jesus had to be God. Only God can pay for an infinite amount of sin for an infinite amount of people.

How did Jesus pay?

Sin was placed on his body. when this happened. Jesus was separated from the father and the spirit (spiritual death)

now I personally would not call this Gods wrath, I would just call this that Jesus become the substitute, He died so we could be made alive.

the penalty of sin is death, in adam all die

so in christ shall all be made alive

how? he suffered the penalty we owe (death

ie, penal substitution.
Click to expand...
There was no spiritual death suffered by Jesus nor separation from the Father. Neither one of the above is found in the Bible concerning Jesus , that’s teaching which comes from man, not God. There is no wrath upon the Son from the Father either which is nowhere found in the Bible.
 
civic said:
There was no spiritual death suffered by Jesus nor separation from the Father.
Click to expand...
then your still dead in your sin, because your sin debt has not been paid.
civic said:
Neither one of the above is found in the Bible concerning Jesus ,
Click to expand...
Actually it is, using ps 52 and jesus own words.

why was Jesus silent through everything he went through for days. and at one particular moment cry out in sever pain and suffering?

that happened when my sin was placed in Jesus body.

God can not relate with sin..


civic said:
that’s teaching which comes from man, not God. There is no wrath upon the Son from the Father either which is nowhere found in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Spiritual death is the wage

If you do not want to call it wrath, do not call it wrath.

God turned his back, there was a seperation

if not we are still dead in our sin, because redemption has not yet been paid.
 
Eternally-Grateful said:
then your still dead in your sin, because your sin debt has not been paid.

Actually it is, using ps 52 and jesus own words.

why was Jesus silent through everything he went through for days. and at one particular moment cry out in sever pain and suffering?

that happened when my sin was placed in Jesus body.

God can not relate with sin..



Spiritual death is the wage

If you do not want to call it wrath, do not call it wrath.

God turned his back, there was a seperation

if not we are still dead in our sin, because redemption has not yet been paid.
Click to expand...
You are arguing presuppositions, not scripture
 
atpollard said:
[Psa 22:6 KJV] 6 But I [am] a worm,[H8438] and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
[Isa 1:18 KJV] 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson,[H8438] they shall be as wool.

[H8438] —crimson, scarlet, worm. (Just so you know)
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for that, my mistake.
 
Last edited:
Waylon said:
PSA is Baaaa...Bad
Click to expand...

I see you have not yet commented on my defense of PSA.

It might interest you to consider it.


Dizerner

Thread 'My full defense of PSA'

I posted much of this before but it's all over in different places and hard to find, so here is my summary of defense for PSA.


ALL other theories of atonement, and I do mean ALL, can only have meaning if derived from the ideas of sin and its punishment. WHY are we even in this mess? Why does God have to FIX anything at all? What is it God is even fixing? Without a thorough understanding of what sin and its punishment entails. you are lost in the water, you are floundering. The ONLY reason that makes any sense for God to become a man and die, to save the world, forgive sins, defeat death...
  • Like
 
civic said:
I found an interesting comment online about PSA and Hodge who in his 3 volume systematic theology work presented for the first time the doctrine laid out. He took from Calvin and Luther and developed the PSA theory into a doctrine.

Hodge maintains that not only does the Bible teach that the innocent may suffer in place of the guilty but that the providence of God in history demonstrates the fact. He is right that the Pentateuch does mention three times the phrase: "God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Ex. 20:5, Num 14:18, Deut. 5:9). What Hodge fails to mention, however, is that this punishment of the children for the deeds of their forefathers seems to be revoked in Ezekiel 18:2-4, 20.

Please complete the citation by Hodge, “…of those that hate Him.” The point in Ex. 20:5; Num. 14:18; and Deut. 5:9 is never that children are being punished for their parents’ sins. Deut. 24:16 make it abundantly clear that the individual, even in the OT, was culpable for his own sins, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” Thus, the principle asserted in the Pentateuch is not being repealed, rethought, or reconsidered in the exilic period; the sense of Hebrew justice is not evolving; just the opposite it has devolved by Ezekiel’s day and is being corrected by him. The point made by God through Moses, and reiterated through Ezekiel, is that children would be affected by their parents’ sin. Parents model for their children what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately, the parents’ sinful behavior and habits are often followed by their children (this is readily seen today in the proliferation of abusive behavior by children who were raised in abusive homes). The point in Ezekiel is that the children, now in exile, were blaming God for being unjust (Ezk. 18:25a, 29b). They came to believe He was punishing them for their forefathers’ sins – a clear misunderstanding of Ex. 20:5; Num. 14:18; and Deut. 5:9). Regrettably, therefore, these same children frequently found themselves practicing the same sinful acts as their parents’. Therefore, the admonition of Ezekiel 18 is for them to accept the same just punishment for such actions. God is driving home the point through his prophet that each child is still individually responsible (Ezk. 18:4). The misunderstanding of the exiles, which could lead to irresponsibility and fatalism, was expressed in the contemporary proverb in Judah: "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (Ezk. 18:2) i.e., what the father did caused judgment to be meted out against his children. The people believed (cf. Jer 31:27-30; Lam 5:7) that righteousness and wickedness were hereditary; therefore, there was no reason to change one's ways. God’s response through the prophet to this new proverb was that the hereditary principle would cease immediately (v. 3), for it had been erroneously applied to righteousness and unrighteousness. The principle of heredity which Ezekiel’s contemporaries had adopted was erroneous and declared as such by God in chapter 18. The principle of individual responsibility before God has always been true (cf. Gen 2:17, 4:7; Deut 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezek 3:16-21, 14:12-20, 33:1-20). A son is not bound to be like his father, though that was the concept among Ezekiel's contemporaries, as it often is today.

However, it should be pointed out that Ezk. 18 goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the children can abort the "sin-punishment-inheritance" progression at any time – (if you sin there is punishment and the likelihood that your children will follow in your sinful ways and suffer the same punishment for their own sins). But he must repent and do what is right.

(Part 2) I think your attempt to demonstrate an evolution in ethical and moral perceptions of justice between Moses and Ezekiel is fallacious; just the opposite is true. The sense of justice the people had embraced had devolved into something other than what God had told them with Moses into a skewed sense of justice which Ezekiel was bound to correct.

That said, I think Hodge, along with other of his contemporaries adopted an erroneous view in relation to the passages cited above, and for the reasons I noted above. However, this should not be taken to mean that Hodge’s assertion the innocent may rightfully bear the iniquity of the guilty is incorrect. The entire sacrificial system of the OT supports the idea that of penal substitution. The fact that an innocent lamb could bear the guilt of an individual, let alone the nation, thus freeing that individual from the consequences of his sin is seen throughout the entire OT system. I disagree with Hodge in his specific use in this instance, but not with his assertion.

I have read your posts with great interests and have come to a conclusion. You seek to compare the atoning work of Christ in penal satisfaction with the exactitude of (mainly modern) legal code. Our modern legal code, and subsequent sense of justice, is more interested in pecuniary satisfaction – that what is paid is the precise amount or the exact thing owed; nothing else. Release then, is not a matter of grace, but of right. (E.g. If a thief does the jail time to which he is sentenced then he has paid his debt to society and is free to return to his life.) In this line of thinking, the atonement of Christ becomes legal tender for forgiveness. A substitute can pay the debt of another in a pecuniary arrangement, but the emphasis is on the debt and amount being paid, not on forgiveness. Our entire American penal code is built upon pecuniary satisfaction. Thus, to compare the penal satisfaction of Christ to the American, let alone the global, sense of justice is fallacious.
Click to expand...

Yep. Man made justice.

There isn't any sense whatsoever of a "Godly Justice" be found in the common teaching of PSA. Zero.

In fact, God's sense of "justice" is only served in the longsuffering of sinners.
 
Dizerner said:
That's incorrect information. What software or website are you using, I'm curious?

It's not your fault since someone made a mistake on it.

It's H8144 Strong's in Isaiah 1:18.
Click to expand...

This is a manuscript issue. You should realize that evil doesn't mind altering the Scriptures. Scribes have done for as long as they've existed.
 
Dizerner said:
The best of us are capable of making an error sometimes.



What I believe about morality is that God has a different standard than us.

How can God sin against God?

That doesn't really make sense.
Click to expand...

So you subscribe to the belief that absolute power dictates morality? That "righteousness" isn't innately quantifiable?

I've been interested in these types of "philosophical" conundrums for a very long time.

Does power dictate righteousness or is righteousness truly absent the necessity of compliance.

I do believe that God doesn't answer to anyone but Himself but the quality of agreement that exists in the Holy Trinity is unique from the dogmas of power taught in Unitarianism.

This might seem rambling to you but I believe it is essential to understandings God's purpose in society.
 
civic said:
You are arguing presuppositions, not scripture
Click to expand...
redemption
sacrifice of atonement on the day of atonement
the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin

its in scripture my friend.

adam died the moment he sinned, God covered his nakedness by killing an animal and covering adam with that animals skin

this is a picture of our atonement, Christ would die in our place

If Jesus did not die SPIRITUAL death

we are still in our sins.
 
Eternally-Grateful said:
redemption
sacrifice of atonement on the day of atonement
the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin

its in scripture my friend.

adam died the moment he sinned, God covered his nakedness by killing an animal and covering adam with that animals skin

this is a picture of our atonement, Christ would die in our place

If Jesus did not die SPIRITUAL death

we are still in our sins.
Click to expand...

No one is denying substitutionary atonement.

It is impossible for God to die Spiritually..... You really don't understand what you're saying.

Not even for even the smallest fraction of a second did Christ die in Spirit.

Heb 10:5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;
Heb 10:6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure.
 

Similar threads

Dizerner
Responding to an atheist: "5 Tough Questions for Christians"
2
Replies
20
Views
286
dwight92070
D
Dean
The Sin of Ungodliness
Replies
3
Views
76
Nathan
Nathan
Dizerner
My full defense of PSA
8 9 10
Replies
196
Views
2K
Eternally-Grateful
E
Ozias
There are Rationalistic Objections to Penal Substitution.
Replies
3
Views
278
e v e
e v e
Obadiah
God The Holy Spirit
Replies
2
Views
49
Fred
F
Back
Top Bottom