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.

 

[John Bauer]

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?

 

[Eleanor]

What?
Do you not mean, if sin was NOT imputed to Christ?
In post #29 you said:
That substitution whereby "Jesus suffered the wrath of God" was because of the imputation of OUR sins to Christ and, conversely, the imputation of his righteousness to ourselves.
It even says, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”. (2 Corinthians 5:21) That is, God imputed our sin to Christ.

The sin of Adam imputed to us (Ro 5:17) is not imputed to Christ.

 

[makesends]

The sin of Adam imputed to us (Ro 5:17) is not imputed to Christ.

Of course! He was without "original sin", but, OUR actual sins and sinfulness is imputed to him, and for that, he suffered our punishment, no?

 

[Arial]

The sin of Adam imputed to us (Ro 5:17) is not imputed to Christ.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/imputed-sin-vs-inherited-sin.2804/

Adam's sin and ours, is imputed to Christ on the cross, by God, in the same way he imputed Adam's sin to us. In a federal headship way, for the church. For the purposes of redemption. That removes us from the federal headship of Adam, as a new creation in Christ.

 

[makesends]

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/imputed-sin-vs-inherited-sin.2804/

Adam's sin and ours, is imputed to Christ, by God, in the same way he imputed Adam's sin to us. In a federal headship way, for the church. For the purposes of redemption. That removes us from the federal headship of Adam, as a new creation in Christ.

I think you agree that Christ was without 'original sin', no? I know you agree that he was without the sin nature that we are all born with.

Was Christ born with imputed sin? Or did it happen at the cross?

 

[EddieM]

"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?

I should have been more clear when I wrote my post. My apologies. In the literal interpretation method, some metaphors and symbolism will be employed, but the metaphorical and symbolic interpretation are generally a last resort. The book of Psalms is a unique genre where symbolism is common.

Here's an interesting stat: The book of Revelation uses only 1 number that is not a literal number. All the other numbers in Revelation are literal. Some of the numbers in Revelation people take symbolically, but when you interpret the text literally you don't take any number symbolically or metaphorically unless a literal number makes no sense. That is why there is only 1 number not to be taken literally. The Millennial Reign of Christ will last 1,000 years. This is not a symbolic number that means "a long time." It is literally 1,000 years.

 

[EddieM]

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.

Oh, okay. I didn't know that. I will abandon it.

 

[EddieM]

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.

denying the Lord who bought them... Who does "them" refer to? Stay away from English Translations. Stick with the Greek Text.

 

[Hazelelponi]

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.

Your reading that 2 Peter 2:1 implies universal redemption misses the verse’s context and linguistic nuances, which are critical for understanding PSA’s particular atonement.

Let’s examine the text biblically:

2 Peter 2:1 states, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”

The Greek verb agorazō (“bought”) - (hyperlink to Greek) denotes a purchase or redemption, often in a redemptive context (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:20). However, Peter’s focus is not atonement’s scope but the culpability of false teachers. These teachers, claiming to be among the redeemed, deny Christ through heresy, incurring greater judgment (Hebrews 10:29). The phrase “who bought them” reflects their professed status within the visible church, not a universal atonement.

These teachers, by claiming to be Christ’s, placed themselves under His headship and the church’s authority. Christ is head of the church (Ephesians 5:23) and is its covenantal leader (rosh, Hebrew for “head,” as in Exodus 18:25). In ancient contexts, (and quite honesty modern as well in some parts of the world) claiming allegiance to a lord (kyrios) implied submission to his authority. By professing faith, they acknowledged Christ’s redemptive purchase (agorazō, Revelation 5:9), yet their heresies denied Him, incurring judgment (Hebrews 10:29). This “bought” status reflects their hypocritical profession within the visible church, not actual atonement.

Scripture consistently teaches that Christ’s death was for His elect, not all humanity. John 10:15 says, “I lay down my life for the sheep,” excluding those not His sheep. Ephesians 5:25 specifies Christ “gave himself up for the church.” Romans 8:32-34 confirms Christ’s atoning work is for those justified, not all.

If 2 Peter 2:1 meant universal redemption, it would contradict these texts and imply universal salvation, which Peter categorically denies, as these teachers face “destruction.” In PSA, Christ bore the wrath for the elect’s sins (Isaiah 53:5-6), satisfying divine justice (Romans 3:25-26).

The term agorazō in 2 Peter 2:1 doesn’t necessitate a literal redemption for unbelievers but highlights the false teachers’ hypocrisy - they reject the Lord they claim redeemed them. In ancient contexts, “buying” could denote authority or ownership (Revelation 5:9), while here, it underscores their accountability, not actual atonement.

Your Dispensationalist literalism is noted, but even literal exegesis requires context. Peter’s audience is the church, warning against internal deception, not addressing atonement’s extent. Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect, per God’s eternal decree (Ephesians 1:4–5).

@EddieM, I urge you to reconsider 2 Peter 2:1 in light of its context and Scripture’s broader testimony. Christ’s life, death and resurrection was for His people (Matthew 1:21), not a universal purchase.

Peace and Grace in Christ Jesus

 

[Arial]

I think you agree that Christ was without 'original sin', no? I know you agree that he was without the sin nature that we are all born with.

Was Christ born with imputed sin? Or did it happen at the cross?

At the cross.

 

[EddieM]

Your reading that 2 Peter 2:1 implies universal redemption misses the verse’s context and linguistic nuances, which are critical for understanding PSA’s particular atonement.

I think what is bothering you is that you think 2 Pt 2.1 teaches universal redemption as if that means all are saved. Being redeemed does not mean eternal salvation. It simply means being purchased out of the slave market (of sin). Also, we are not saved if all our sins were paid for. Salvation is accepting God's offer of salvation, not the removal of sins (Mark 3.28). The payment of sins (redemption) puts you no closer to salvation.

 

[Arial]

I think what is bothering you is that you think 2 Pt 2.1 teaches universal redemption as if that means all are saved. Being redeemed does not mean eternal salvation. It simply means being purchased out of the slave market (of sin). Also, we are not saved if all our sins were paid for. Salvation is accepting God's offer of salvation, not the removal of sins (Mark 3.28). The payment of sins (redemption) puts you no closer to salvation.

Yikes!

 

[Carbon]

Being redeemed does not mean eternal salvation.

Well then, how long is salvation?

It simply means being purchased out of the slave market (of sin).

Also, we are not saved if all our sins were paid for.

What would you call it? And if all your sins were paid for, what sin is left to condemn you?

Salvation is accepting God's offer of salvation,

Please point this out in scripture? Thanks.

not the removal of sins (Mark 3.28). The payment of sins (redemption) puts you no closer to salvation.

 

[Carbon]

Yikes!

Indeed.

 

[Arial]

Well then, how long is salvation?

To that I might add the question, "How long is eternal life?"