Elin and Zone,
You both speak a lot of fluff. When all your rhetoric is stripped away you still have a Gospel which denies this...
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
The entire premise of the gospel you believe in is based on this judicial exchange whereby entrance into the kingdom is ensured whilst the believer is still wicked in their heart.
There is NO HEART PURITY in this gospel you preach. Penal Substitution completely eliminates it and you completely ignore the underlying error that lies at the root. I won't get caught in your games, I will pull back the curtain and reveal the wizard so to speak.
For example in you desperation to uphold this terrible doctrine with the Scripture you quote Isa 53:4...
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
I notice you don't highlight "we did esteem him" which puts into the context of "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." Isaiah is clearly teaching here that from the perspective of man it appeared that Jesus was being literally stricken and smitten of God. Isaiah does not say anywhere in Isa 53 that Jesus was punished by God as your substitute. You are reading that understanding into the text.
Jesus was offered on our behalf, He was not offered as a Penal Substitute. Jesus died on our behalf so that "we can die with Him" and He was also offered on our behalf as a sin offering who was without blemish as a propitiation that our PAST SINS be forgiven by His blood.
Penal Substitution leaves the heart of man in a wicked filthy state because it completely negates the crucifixion of the flesh with the passions and desires whereby the body of sin is done away with(Rom 6:6, Gal 5:24). The believer does not have to crucify the flesh with the passions and desires because the ongoing yielding to them (Jam 1:14-15) in rebellion to God has been CLOAKED by the PENAL SUBSTITUTION PROVISION. That is why this doctrine is DEADLY.
The root of your theology is in error. It is due to the these errors that so many professing Christian's are still in bondage to sin. They NEVER crucified the flesh with the passions and desires.
They still do this...
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Instead of this...
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pe 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.
They don't take the way of escape...
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
They don't take the way of escape and endure temptation because they have been taught "THEY DO NOT HAVE TO" because the penalty for all their sins (including future sins) has been paid. It is a lie. It is Satan's old lie of "ye can disobey God and not surely die" dressed up in fancy theology.
Strip all the fluff from your rhetoric and you have a false gospel that justifies ongoing sin. You won't say you "should" sin but you will say you "can" sin. This underlying fallacy is what you cannot address. You are forced to deny Gal 5:24 and teach that believers have not crucified the flesh with the PASSIONS AND DESIRES. Crucifixion of the flesh to you is purely FORENSIC. It is ABSTRACT. Satan has beguiled your mind and you are completely oblivious to it.
Hence questions like this will cause you great anguish...
"Does a serial murderer have to stop murdering people BEFORE God forgives them?"
The answer to that question is YES! The murderer MUST FORSAKE MURDERING. Yet your doctrine will force you to dance around that question instead of addressing it directly. If you answer it directly you basically expose your doctrine for what it is, "a defence of sin."
Look at what you said here...
The Penal Substitution Theory: On the Mark
"Matthew 5:17-18 (NIV)
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Clearly, Jesus himself understood his work to be complimentary to what had already been established. His work was to be that which would fulfill the law and the prophets rather something entirely new and unrelated. [Jesus fulfilled the law (Mat 5:17) and SO DO WE (Mat 5:20, Rom 8:4). Penal Substitution DENIES that WE FULFILL THE LAW because it teaches "Jesus fulfilled the law AS YOUR SUBSTITUTE so you don't have to." No system examined in this series thus far has expressed atonement in terms that related it as a fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. The Recapitulation Theory disregards the Law almost entirely. The Ransom Theory has God paying off Satan [It was Origen's View that philosophied that the ransom was paid to Satan, NOT RANSOM ITSELF, the Bible does not state that a ransom was paid to Satan, that is men adding their conjecture to the Bible], which is dramatically opposed to the Old Testament Law in which God himself receives (or rejects) man’s sin offering(s). The Moral Example Theory completely disregards the punitive nature of the Law; attempting to implement a works oriented salvation which disregards the penalty of former sins. The Mystical Theory, in addition to being just plain weird, offers absolutely no hint of vicarious atonement as outlined in the Law. And, the Necessary-Satisfaction Theory, while working off of good principles, still misappropriates certain legal aspects of atonement as depicted in the Law.
A good atonement theory must adequately illustrate how God’s program of redemption in the Law was systematically fulfilled and completed by the work of Christ! Otherwise, Christ cannot be understood as having fulfilled the Law.
Calvin’s theory connected the proper dots.
John Calvin is your teacher, not the Bible. You view the Bible through the lense of John Calvin.
Penal Substitution was NEVER TAUGHT until the Reformation. Penal Substitution is an INVENTION of the Reformation.
John Calvin DENIED "heart purity." Of course he would though, after all he supported the burning of heretics at the stake.
Here is what John Calvin taught...
I answer, that the grace which they call accepting, is nothing else than the free goodness with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes us with the innocence of Christ, and accepts it as ours, so that in consideration of it he regards us as holy, pure, and innocent. For the righteousness of Christ (as it alone is perfect, so it alone can stand the scrutiny of God) must be sisted for us, and as a surety represent us judicially. Provided with this righteousness, we constantly obtain the remission of sins through faith. Our imperfection and impurity, covered with this purity, are not imputed but are as it were buried, so as not to come under judgment until the hour arrive when the old man being destroyed, and plainly extinguished in us, the divine goodness shall receive us into beatific peace with the new Adam, there to await the day of the Lord, on which, being clothed with incorruptible bodies, we shall be translated to the glory of the heavenly kingdom.
Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
All salvation was to him was a CLOAK FOR VICE.
There was no REDEMPTION FROM THE BONDAGE OF SIN.
Modern Christianity for the most part has adopted this CLOAK FOR VICE. Redemption from iniquity has been thrown to the wind an in its place are doctrines which simply absolve sinners from the condemnation of ONGOING iniquity.
Hence whenever I ask a Pastor if a pornography addict has to forsake His sin in order to be forgiven by God they say NO! These Pastors do not see any connection whatsoever between SALVATION and BEING SET FREE FROM THE BONDAGE OF SIN. They believe in "freedom IN bondage" and "salvation IN sin." They are DECEIVED!
Look at this quote from John Calvin...
23. Hence also it is proved, that it is entirely by the intervention of Christ’s righteousness that we obtain justification before God. This is equivalent to saying that man is not just in himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation, while he is strictly deserving of punishment. Thus vanishes the absurd dogma, that man is justified by faith, inasmuch as it brings him under the influence of the Spirit of God by whom he is rendered righteous. This is so repugnant to the above doctrine that it never can be reconciled with it.
Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
John Calvin found it "repugnant" that man would be rendered righteous by an active faith yielded to the influence of God.
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them,
purifying their hearts by faith.
1Pe 1:22 Seeing
ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
His doctrine replaced and active faith which cleanses the heart with a passive trust in a provision by which man was reckoned righteous whilst still defiled in the heart.
The bottom live of Calvinism is salvation via a JUDICIAL CLOAK. If you want to buy into that lie then that is your choice. The early church taught no such thing, not even close.
You say this...
Understanding the problem of sin properly- that it invokes God’s wrath- is key to understanding the nature of the satisfaction Jesus secured in the atonement. It was God’s wrath over sin which was in need of satisfaction. The atonement is oriented toward the securing of justice rather than honor. God’s law had been broken, invoking his wrath. And, being a just God, he demanded that payment be rendered for the broken Law. Such payment is not a mystery in the biblical narrative. God prescribed his punitive decision prior to the offense, clearly noting in the Garden of Eden that,
Where in the Bible is that taught? Find a single scripture or passage anywhere in the entire Bible where it teaches that the "wrath of God over sin needed to be satisified."
The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and that without the shedding of blood there is no remission. The Bible teaches that repentance is for remission also.
Yet where does the Bible teach anything close that God's wrath over sin needed to be satisfied?
Many people believe that, yes, but you won't find it in the Bible. Your doctrine comes from Reformed Teachers AND NOT the Bible.
You say this...
God had always upheld the wages of sin. They have never – nor will they ever change. And, God’s sense of justice demands that wrongdoing be punished and that the offended party (himself) be compensated. Jesus’ death on the cross accomplished both. The sins of man were paid vicariously (more on that in coming posts) and God’s justice was upheld.
Wrong! God is willing to freely forgive sin if the sinner forsakes his unrighteousness and turns back to God.
Eze 18:21 But
if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Eze 18:27 Again,
when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
This parable of Jesus refutes the contention that "God's wrath must be satisfied."
Mat 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
Mat 18:24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
Mat 18:25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
Mat 18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and
forgave him the debt.
Mat 18:28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
Mat 18:29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
Mat 18:31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
Mat 18:32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant,
I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
Mat 18:33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Mat 18:35
So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
If what you believe is true then why didn't Jesus teach it? The servant was freely forgiven, no one paid the debt on the behalf of the servant. When the servant did not forgive his own servant the debt was reinstated and then Jesus says, "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." The complete OPPOSITE of what you believe.
Yes it is true that the Bible teaches that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" but nowhere does the Bible teach that the "shedding of blood" is to "satisfy the wrath of God." You get that dogma from men NOT from the Bible.
Who are you going to believe? Jesus or John Calvin?
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The wages of sin is death indeed. God's gift to us is eternal life THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. Not through Jesus being a "wrath substitute" which is found nowhere in the Bible, no, through the blood of Jesus Christ being offerered WITHOUT SPOT on our behalf as well as through the Spirit of life IN HIM (Rom 8:2, Gal 2:20).
It's a shame that you resort to the "cut and pasting" of CONJECTURE AND RHETORIC from Reformed Teachers instead of using the plain Scripture.