Jesus Christ and the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

Definitions Jesus Christ = Jesus of Nazareth (c. 5 BC/BCE – c. 30 AD/CE), also referred to as Jesus Christ or simply Jesus, is the central figure of Christianity. Most Christian denominations venerate him as God the Son incarnated and believe that he rose from the dead after being crucified.[6][7] http://en.wikipedia.org...... Penal Substitution Atonement Theory = Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory)[1][2] is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, especially associated with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment http://en.wikipedia.org...... PSAT = Penal Substitution Atonement Theory --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expectations of the debate I as the Con will raise objections to the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory My opponent Pro will advocate for Penal Substitution Atonement Theory and defend against my objections. Terms of winning: If my objections and arguments are better, then I win, if Pros defense and arguments are better then they win. VERY IMPORTANT !!!!!!! ---- > This is a debate based on arguments and reason, thus it is expected that you take time to understand the objection raised, and to show where its reasoning is faulty. I ask that you don't accept this debate then try to change it. If you have any problems or concerns with this debate, please refer to them in the comments section first, so we can come to an agreement and make any changes to the debate before starting the debate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In order to maintain focus on the PSAT, and my objections I am willing to concede the following points to Pro. 1) Jesus Christ(whether God, man or both) died (either by crucification or other means) 2) Everyone is a sinner or most people are sinners (Either because they are born as such, or choose as such, or both) Just because I concede these two points don't assume thats means I have conceded anything else. Now seeing I have being super nice and already conceded these two points I ask that Pro debate in good faith and not resort to semantics or other such shenanigans in this debate. Objection 1) The debt and payment of sin.......... A common analogy used is that of debt, where some one is in debt, and some one else pays for that debt. In the analogy debt = sin , Jesus = the payer of that debt, God = the one who is owed the debt. Now, I have no objection say for instance to some one else paying some ones parking fine, I do not consider this a breach of justice. So at this point Con could say well there you go, you don't object in principle to some one else paying debt so you don't have an objection here. Well not so fast, the objection is raised because there is a HUGE difference between some one paying some one else parking fine, and some one paying for some one else's rape or murder. Consider this example, some one is guilty of murder or rape or genocide etc, some one else steps in and offers to bear the punishment instead of the guilty, although a noble act, it would not matter, to allow the guilty to go free, while punishing the innocent, would be morally wrong, and no justice system that we regard as civilized would do it. With this in mind, lets be clear, the claim that Jesus died for our sins, is not Jesus paying our parking fines, but rather our sins that are so great, that it requires God to send people to hell for eternity because of them. In summary we would reject a justice system that let some one go unpunished and declared innocent who is guilty of rape, torture, murder, genocide etc, by punishing a volunteered innocent in the place of the guilty, thus we should reject Penal Substitution Atonement Theory. I do have more objections, but I would rather see Pros reply to this objection first, after all we have 5 rounds. I look forward to Pros response.