The penal substitution theory is not Biblical – youtube film about the atonement of Christ
Do check Jesse Morell’s film about “The vicarious atonement”, and do read the text under it. The penal substitution theory is not what the Bible describes and it’s actually a rather modern theory since it was birthed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) AD). It’s better to say “Jesus died as a sin offering for the remission of sins”, instead of “Jesus paid four our sins, was punished instead of us and took the wrath of God instead of us”. The last suggestion might lead to a reformed (calvinistic) type of thinking in order to save this unbiblical doctrine.
“Paul said, “God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it” (Heb. 4:2). The atonement does not automatically or unconditionally save anyone; rather, it saves those who meet the conditions of repentance and faith. “
“The fallaciousness of such a statement would be repeated if a person said, “Public schools do not exist to make education available to the public, but to actually educate students.” The truth is that public schools exist to do both. They exist to make education available to all while making it actual for those who have enrolled. In fact, education could not become actual unless it was first made available.”
“In the same way, Christ came to make salvation available to all, but salvation only becomes actual for those who are converted.”
“The Penal Substitutionary atonement does ultimately necessitate either universalism or limited atonement.”
“If Jesus took the penalty that our sins deserved, it would be unjust for us to be punished. But then we are saved by justice, not grace. We could demand salvation instead of beg for it. If Jesus paid our debt, there is nothing left for God to forgive. So salvation would be void of any forgiveness. But the Bible says that Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins, that through His atonement there is forgiveness. His death, therefore, could not have been the punishment of our sins. Jesus taught us to pray for God to forgive us our debt. His death therefore could not have been the payment of our debt. This is why Calvinists like Albert Barnes and Jonathan Edwards rejected the Penal view of the atonement because it is void of any grace or forgiveness in our justification.”
“The Bible says without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. The Greek word remission means to remit penalty. That means through the atonement our penalty is remitted. The atonement itself, therefore, could not have been the penalty that we deserved. The penalty that we deserve is eternal hell, that is the penalty of the law, not crucifixion or physical death. Jesus did not suffer eternal hell, therefore He did not take our literal penalty.”
“In forgiveness, God turns from His wrath. Forgiveness is not the satisfaction of His wrath. “
