Why is it important to understand penal substitutionary atonement?



MACARTHUR: If you don’t understand the doctrine of penal substitution, you don’t know why Christ died, and you would assume that if you’re Christian you would want to know why Christ died. If you took one verse, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says, “You’re ambassadors,” right? In 18 to 21.

So, you know, we go into the world, we beg people to be reconciled to God. He’s given us the Word of reconciliation, right? That’s the message we preach, “You can be reconciled to God.” We have the ministry of reconciliation. We have the message of reconciliation. But how is that possible?

How is it possible for a sinner to be reconciled to a holy God? That is the most legitimate question that a sinner could ever ask. Ok, you’re telling me God’s holy, that God is righteous. that God is perfect.

How is it possible for me to be reconciled to a holy God without Him not tarnishing His holiness? Or to put it in the language of Paul, “How can God be just and the justifier of sinners?” That is the absolute apex question of all religion.

The primary question that religion attempts to answer is, “How can I go from being God’s enemy to being His friend? How can I make peace with God?” whatever god that religion espouses. So, all religion is designed to somehow come to terms with the deity.

In Christianity, the question is built around holiness and justice and righteousness. So, how can God forgive me and still be holy? And, the only thing that answers that question is penal substitution because penal substitution says God is so holy every sin will be punished.

Every single sin in the life of every Christian believer through all of human history will be punished, was punished. All sin must be punished. Either the sinner will bear that punishment eternally or Christ took that punishment on the cross.

The only thing that protects the pure, righteous holiness of God is that sin is punished. That’s penal substitution. If you remove that part of the cross, then how does God reconcile His holiness with just wishing sin away without a punishment? There has to be a punishment for God to maintain His justice.

That punishment falls on His Son. BINGHAM: I can remember before I became a Christian but had heard the gospel a number of times, sitting down with the woman that’s actually now my wife and asking her, “Explain to me John 3:16. Why did God have to send His Son?

Why did Jesus have to die? Why didn’t God bake brownies to save the world?” Like, “What’s was this whole ‘dying on the cross’ thing?” At that time, she couldn’t answer the question, and it was actually hard. We had to go into church and try and get information.

“Explain to me penal substitution,” because all the gospel presentations I’d heard was missing that phase. MACARTHUR: You see that is “the question.” That is not some kind of optional issue, penal substitution. You’ve got a massive problem if God just says, “Hey, you’re forgiven.”

Now, the character of God is called into question as to His integrity, His holiness, His virtue, His righteousness, His perfection. And so, God is so pure and holy that He will punish every single sin ever committed by every person either in that person or in the substitute for that person.

That is the purest heart of Christianity and soteriology.

#important #understand #penal #substitutionary #atonement

On the Function of Christ’s Human & Divine Natures in the Atonement



I was wondering if you could clear this up for me. So… argues that Christ’s suffering was equivalent to our eternal damnation on account of the infinite dignity of Christ. So he appeals to the divine nature of Christ and that absolves the issue. But earlier this morning you mentioned that when Christ experienced the

Loss of fellowship with the Father it was through his human nature and not the divine, and so what I’m having a difficult time understanding is how we can appeal to the divine nature of Jesus in order for the sacrifice to be sufficient, while denying that it is the involvement of his divine nature.

This is a tremendous subtlety of Chalcedonian orthodoxy concerning the two natures of Christ. And that is that there is only one person who Christ is, and that is a divine person. It is the second person of the Trinity. There is no

Human person who is Jesus of Nazareth. There is a divine person who has a human nature as well as a divine nature. So it’s not that in virtue of his divine nature that Christ makes atonement; it is that you have a divine person who in his

Human nature bears our sin and punishment, and it’s the person that is divine and is the one who suffers and dies and so forth for our sins, but he does so with respect to the human nature.

#Function #Christs #Human #Divine #Natures #Atonement

Since Jesus was born of “the substance” of the Virgin Mary, how was He without original sin?



SPROUL: Now, when we talk about Jesus receiving what you call “the substance” from His mother, the Virgin Mary, of course we’re talking about His human nature. And because we’re talking about His deriving His human nature from His mother, you would

Think that that human nature would pass along, as it is the case with every other human being, all of the ramifications of original sin. Now, that raises all kinds of theological questions that touch upon it. One of the oldest theological questions is the question of how the soul, for example,

Is transmitted from parents to their children. And the two schools of thought of that are called “creationism” and “traducianism.” Traducianism says that the whole person, body and soul, is transmitted from the parents to their progeny through the natural process of birth.

Others argue, which is called “creationism,” that every time a human being is born, that person is a brand new creation by the immediate and direct power of God’s creativity. And so it’s not a matter of transmitting human nature by natural processes.

Now the reason I say that this question you’ve raised touches on the dispute over creationism and traducianism is that if you’re a creationist, you have no problem with having a human nature coming from the mother of Jesus, yet at the same time being born without original sin

If it’s a direct and immediate act of divine creation. If you’re a traducianist, on the other hand, where you see the body and soul being transmitted through the natural process, then the question that you raise becomes a more difficult problem. However, others have argued, and particularly historically in the Roman Catholic Church

That the reason for the virgin birth and to bypass the male was not because they believe that original sin was transmitted by the male rather than the female, but rather that the miraculous dimension of Jesus’ birth being a virgin birth was partly designed by God

To interrupt the normal transmission of human nature from parents to their children in order to make it possible for a human being post-Adam to be born without original sin. Now in the mystery of the incarnation, we don’t know exactly what process God used to make that so in the birth of Jesus.

We do know, as the Scriptures teach us, that He was made like us in every respect except one, namely without sin and without original sin. Some have argued against that saying if Jesus didn’t have original sin, He wasn’t truly human.

But of course, the problem with that is this, that Adam before the fall was truly human, and we in our glorified state in heaven without sin then will still be human. So that original sin is not an inherent necessity for humanness.

So we know theologically that God could have this child born through the virgin birth from His mother and bypassing the normal process of original sin. WEBB: R.C., I’m just curious, did some of the earliest church councils wrestle with that question? SPROUL: Well yes, they did.

And of course, early on there was a debate and a dispute over from whence Jesus’ divine nature came? And Mary was called “theotokos”, the mother of God, but not in the sense that Jesus derived His divine nature from His mother, but only to point out that the One that she bore and

That she nurtured as His mother was God incarnate.

#Jesus #born #substance #Virgin #Mary #original #sin

A brief history of the devil – Brian A. Pavlac



Satan, the beast crunching sinners’ bones in his subterranean lair. Lucifer, the fallen angel raging against the established order. Mephistopheles, the trickster striking deals with unsuspecting humans. These three divergent devils are all based on Satan of the Old Testament,

An angelic member of God’s court who torments Job in the Book of Job. But unlike any of these literary devils, the Satan of the Bible was a relatively minor character, with scant information about his deeds or appearance.

So how did he become the ultimate antagonist, with so many different forms? In the New Testament, Satan saw a little more action: tempting Jesus, using demons to possess people, and finally appearing as a giant dragon who is cast into hell. This last image particularly inspired medieval artists and writers,

Who depicted a scaled, shaggy-furred creature with overgrown toenails. In Michael Pacher’s painting of St. Augustine and the Devil, the devil appears as an upright lizard— with a second miniature face glinting on his rear and. The epitome of these monster Satans appeared in Italian poet Dante Alighieri’s “Inferno.”

Encased in the ninth circle of hell, Dante’s Satan is a three-headed, bat-winged behemoth who feasts on sinners. But he’s also an object of pity: powerless as the panicked beating of his wings only encases him further in ice. The poem’s protagonist escapes from hell by clambering over Satan’s body,

And feels both disgust and sympathy for the trapped beast— prompting the reader to consider the pain of doing evil. By the Renaissance, the devil started to assume a more human form. Artists painted him as a man with cloven hooves and curling horns inspired by Pan, the Greek god of the wild.

In his 1667 masterpiece “Paradise Lost,” English poet John Milton depicted the devil as Lucifer, an angel who started a rebellion on the grounds that God is too powerful. Kicked out of heaven, this charismatic rebel becomes Satan, and declares that he’d rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.

Milton’s take inspired numerous depictions of Lucifer as an ambiguous figure, rather than a purely evil one. Milton’s Lucifer later became an iconic character for the Romantics of the 1800s, who saw him as a hero who defied higher power in pursuit of essential truths, with tragic consequences.

Meanwhile, in the German legend of Doctor Faust, which dates to the 16th century, we get a look at what happens when the devil comes to Earth. Faust, a dissatisfied scholar, pledges his soul to the devil in exchange for bottomless pleasure. With the help of the devil’s messenger Mephistopheles,

Faust quickly seizes women, power, and money— only to fall into the eternal fires of hell. Later versions of the story show Mephistopheles in different lights. In Christopher Marlowe’s account, a cynical Doctor Faustus is happy to strike a deal with Mephistopheles. In Johann Wolfgang van Goethe’s version,

Mephistopheles tricks Faust into a grisly deal. Today, a Faustian bargain refers to a trade that sacrifices integrity for short-term gains. In stagings of Goethe’s play, Mephistopheles appeared in red tights and cape. This version of the devil was often played as a charming trickster— one that eventually paraded through comic books,

Advertising, and film in his red suit. These three takes on the devil are just the tip of the iceberg: the devil continues to stalk the public imagination to this day, tempting artists of all kinds to render him according to new and fantastical visions.

#history #devil #Brian #Pavlac