PSA: What is Implied in Christ's Substitution; What Death Did He Die?

[Arial]

2 Pt 2.1

That does not say that Jesus redeems all people even unbelievers. For one thing Peter is not advancing a theory of the atonement but pointing out the responsibility of the false teachers. They claim to be redeemed but their sensuality (v.2) brings dishonor to Christ and his sacrifice for sin. If Peter were saying that Christ's death on the cross purchased all people, even unbelievers it would contradict John 10: 15 and every place that says believing gives eternal life and not believing gives damnation and eternal hell.

 

[David Lamb]

2 Pt 2.1

But 2 Peter 2:1 says:

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” (2Pe 2:1 NKJV)

That verse certainly does not say that Jesus redeem all humans, including unbelievers, which is what you were saying.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

What does the NT mean when it says that Jesus redeem all humans, including unbelievers?

I am on the road right now but I'll be back tomorrow afternoon, and I can hardly wait to answer this one. There is a clear answer that makes abundant sense from a Reformed perspective.

 

[His clay]

This thread will necessarily get into just what is human death —is it only physical death that is meant by, "The wages of sin is death"? That will not be Off-Topic. I also happily expect it also to divert into the meaning of "eternity", and its implications.

But, first, @Arial said, in another thread:

This is not exactly what Arial meant to address, but it provoked the thought in me that remains unresolved, concerning the meaning of one's death.

When I was growing up, it never entered my mind that Christ's death on the cross was only the passing of his physical life. I always assumed that he suffered every bit the penalty I would have had to pay, to include the infinite ('eternal') suffering of Hell and the Lake of Fire.

When my mother looked at me shocked one day at the notion that Jesus more than simply suffered horribly at the hands of 'legal' murderers, and endured the scorn and rejection of humanity, and lost his physical life, and asked in a dramatic whisper if I really thought he suffered the spiritual death I would be suffering if God was to count my sins against me, I said, yes, of course I believe that! She's gone, now, so I'm sure she knows better than I can understand it, what Christ did on my behalf.

But, I have no recourse but to think that Christ died precisely the death that all the redeemed would have died.

Was the 'mere', 'simple', fact of his temporal suffering and physical death, all that happened here?

Much more than just physical death

While I don't discount the discussion of others, for me, this discussion is just too old hat. I see the opponents of psa largely focused upon a "supposed" problem between God's wrath and the Father's love for the Son. But at the end of the day, this supposed problem is just too stupid to me, and biblical clarity on the issue just simply prohibits me from seeing anything other than a penal substitutionary atonement. The problem seems largely connected to the larger apologetic issues of "how could a loving God do "X"?" I just cannot pit God's love against His holiness. And accusations of divine child abuse collapse under the reality that a false moral standard is being employed against the reality that God is God, and I am not.

So to me, the arguments against psa boil down to a liberal take, where false views of God's nature are used, a false nuance of propitiation is endorsed, and I've run into posters who are clearly just running from the biblical text (endorsing the most fanciful possibilities other than the most likely meaning). I guess that I'm rambling a bit over the issue, and one could argue that I'm preemptively cutting off dialogue, but that is why I spoke concerning myself. Others are more than welcome to discuss the issue.

I have read "Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution," and it dealt with the vast majority of objections (though not all). I would recommend it as a good resource. The endorsements on the back cover point out that the book has good backing.

I wish you well @makesends in your journey through this topic. This will likely be my last post in this thread on the subject. PSA is at the heart of the atonement and the gospel, and a deviation there may very well be right in the alley of what Galatians says is anathema (another gospel).

 

[Eleanor]

I find your interpretation of 2 Pt 2.1 to be inconsistent and bringing the Kingship of Christ in from nowhere. I use the literal interpretation method; I am a Dispensationalist. I honestly can not understand why bible students insist upon the need for symbolism or metaphors. There is no objective way of confirming an interpretation that way.

However, that "objective" interpretation must be in agreement with, and not in disagreement with
NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:16).

Dispensationalism fails that test big time.

 

[His clay]

I find your interpretation of 2 Pt 2.1 to be inconsistent and bringing the Kingship of Christ in from nowhere. I use the literal interpretation method; I am a Dispensationalist. I honestly can not understand why bible students insist upon the need for symbolism or metaphors. There is no objective way of confirming an interpretation that way.

Oh, to be more like Him.

"The Lord is my strength and my shield;
my heart trusts in him, and he helps me.
My heart leaps for joy,
and with my song I praise him."

So in Psalm 28:7 the Lord is literally a block of wood and iron meant to fend off arrows and weapons? If you have no place for metaphorical or symbolic language, then what do you do with this verse?