Jesus Christ and the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

I hope and will pray that my opponent is safe… only too busy to post or comment. I do want to address a few more things that surround the PSAT concern stated by my opponent. I do feel very confidant my opponents Single Objection of PSAT being an unjust system and should be rejected as a system of justice. .. has been clearly refuted. Below are two concepts for my opponent to better understand PSAT and to come a better understanding of the different viewpoints for existence. A commenter has continued to discuss this at length and challenge the multiple viewpoints. He continues to cite my statements as propitiatory satisfaction and has lead my opponent to the same argument. I post further down an article by Dr. Ian Shaw a reformed theologian that asserts the same as I do. Propitiatory satisfaction is an interlocking element to PSAT. It is how Jesus fulfilled the penal substitution. My opponent did not in his first round or resolution make any statement that I needed to directly take the side of a single view of PSAT. I took the debate with an understanding there was no such restriction to a single denominational view or a single system of thought. Thus, to clarify a more full understanding, all denominations hold to a Penal understanding of the Cross of Christ. CONCEPT 1> To start with the Catholics (Next the Arminianists): Reparation (Penal Substitution) theology is quite prevalent but there are many Catholics who argue against any Penal aspects. That does not say, "there is NO Catholic PSAT", only that there is debate in the Catholic Church and differing views are held. (Same concept of the followers of Mary and those who appose the worship of Mary. ) . http://www.newadvent.org... "Although God might have condoned men's offences gratuitously if He had chosen to do so, yet in His Providence He did not do this; He judged it better to demand satisfaction for the injuries which man had done Him. It is better for man's education that wrong doing on his part should entail the necessity of making satisfaction. This satisfaction was made adequately to God by the Sufferings, Passion, and Death of Jesus Christ, made Man for us. " Here is an example of this in Catholic Practice . http://www.rosary-center.org... The First Sorrowful Mystery THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN 1. Jesus comes with his disciples to Gethsemani: "Stay here, while I go yonder and pray. " 2. Entering the garden with Peter, James, and John, Jesus prays, "My soul is sorrowful unto death. " 3. Jesus sees the sins of all mankind, whose guilt He has taken upon Himself. 4. He sees the wrath of the Father which His sufferings must appease. 5. So great is his anguish that His sweat becomes as drops of blood falling to the ground. 6. An angel appears to Him from heaven to strengthen Him. 7. "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet, not My will but Yours be done. " 8. Finding the disciples asleep: "Could you not watch one hour with me? " 9. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, cruelly bound and led away. 10. Father, by the merits of the agony of Jesus in the Garden, have mercy on us and on the whole world. Catholics do hold to a PSAT view but it is very different than a Reformed's version. Jesus is the propitiatory satisfier of God's Penal demand for reparations. Sound incredibly. .. dead on. .. familiar? ****** CONCEPT 2> The Arminian/Wesleyan/Protestant Anglican also hold to the PSAT but it differs from both the Catholic and the Reformed. (each of these three slashes do have subtle differences but I will lump them together due to much of their similarities www. e-n. org. uk/p-3348-'Justice-divine-is-satisfied'. htm This link will need to be pasted to view. Here is an article excerpt from Dr. Ian J. Shaw a REFORMED Historian Lecturing at International Christian College in Glasgow. This reformed theologian recognizes that my arguments with the commentator are valid. Propitiatory satisfaction is the resolution to the Penal substitution of Jesus to satisfy the justice of God. Dr Ian clearly states that there is no conflict between Propitiatory satisfaction and Penal substitution that even that Arminianists (such as myself) hold to both and teach both. Propitiatory satisfaction is indeed the fulfillment of the event of Penal substitution of Jesus Christ for us. This is the view held by most in the Arminian camp today. Conclusion >> 1)The rosary and the Catholic reparation theology 2)The reformed Dr. Ian clearly teaching that Propitiatory satisfaction is NOT in opposition to Penal Substitution but can go hand in hand. 3) The reformed J. I. Packer's lecture in 1973 on the differing views of PSAT 3)My own teachings and understandings of each denominations belief systems regarding Penal Substitution These three show that my opponents Statements that I am arguing for Propitiatory satisfaction is clearly wrong. I am stating that Propitiatory satisfaction refutes his objections to Penal Substitution. Propitiatory satisfaction is NOT an opposing belief system but goes hand in hand and is a necessary next step to clearly understanding PSAT. This shows that my opponents initial objection to God being unjust under a Penal substitution system is profoundly inaccurate. Hopefully these layouts resolve some of the issues and complexities my opponent and the commentator tried to bring up.