Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

[JonC]

Let's look at this issue from the other direction, that of Socinus.

I have witnessed PSA presented in such a way as to validate the objection of Socinus (i.e., "divine justice demands that..." or "God first had to..."). If God had to receive payment in full in order to forgive or risk violating His own sense of "justice", then that is not forgiveness. The fallacy of that method of argument is that PSA itself is misrepresented by such wording.

God is not a slave to His nature, but instead is revealed by that nature. God's "justice" did not have to be met, nor did God have to receive payment in full in order to forgive (that would not be "forgiveness"). God Himself taking our sins and purchasing us with his own blood is not merely paving the way so that He can forgive us. It is the basis of forgiveness itself (we were purchased with a price). It goes back to that multifaceted gem. God's redemptive plan was in such as way so that He is both just and the justifier of those who are saved.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have witnessed PSA presented in such a way as to validate the objection of Socinus (i.e., "divine justice demands that..." or "God first had to..."). If God had to receive payment in full in order to forgive or risk violating His own sense of "justice", then that is not forgiveness. The fallacy of that method of argument is that PSA itself is misrepresented by such wording.

God is not a slave to His nature, but instead is revealed by that nature. God's "justice" did not have to be met, nor did God have to receive payment in full in order to forgive (that would not be "forgiveness"). God Himself taking our sins and purchasing us with his own blood is not merely paving the way so that He can forgive us. It is the basis of forgiveness itself (we were purchased with a price). It goes back to that multifaceted gem. God's redemptive plan was in such as way so that He is both just and the justifier of those who are saved.

Whoa why would that not be forgiveness?

 

[JonC]

Whoa why would that not be forgiveness?

We are to forgive because we have been forgiven. If I demand payment of a debt in full before I will or can forgive that debt, then this does not meet the definition of forgiveness. If, however, I take the consequences of that debt upon myself then the debt is paid and I have forgiven the debtor based upon that payment.

I do not believe God satisfied the demands of justice so that He could forgive us. Instead God purchased us with His own blood in a manner that He is both just and the justifier of sinners.

 

[TCassidy]

We are to forgive because we have been forgiven.

But we are not God and we don't get to make the rules.

 

[JonC]

But we are not God and we don't get to make the rules.

But by God's grace we get to follow them.

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (Eph. 4:22)

 

[JamesL]

We are to forgive because we have been forgiven. If I demand payment of a debt in full before I will or can forgive that debt, then this does not meet the definition of forgiveness. If, however, I take the consequences of that debt upon myself then the debt is paid and I have forgiven the debtor based upon that payment.

I do not believe God satisfied the demands of justice so that He could forgive us. Instead God purchased us with His own blood in a manner that He is both just and the justifier of sinners.

I have argued that very thing.
Christ's death did not make a way for forgiveness, His death IS our forgiveness.

BTW, in my mentions of Penal Substitution, I have intentionally refrained from adding either an A or a T.

I wholeheartedly espouse a substitutionary atonement, but some forms of the theory are quite narrow

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not believe God satisfied the demands of justice so that He could forgive us. Instead God purchased us with His own blood in a manner that He is both just and the justifier of sinners.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[JonC]

A distinction without a difference.

No, a distinction with an eternal difference.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, a distinction with an eternal difference.

Yea rethinking your statement it is. However, God did fulfill the demand for justice and yes that is forgiveness. It appears you have a less than normal view of forgiveness.

 

[JonC]

Yea rethinking your statement it is. However, God did fulfill the demand for justice and yes that is forgiveness. It appears you have a less than normal view of forgiveness.

Nope...a more than normal (a biblical) view of forgiveness Laugh.

But yes, redemption not only glorifies God in His mercy but also in His justice. That's why I said He is both just and justifier.

 

[TCassidy]

But by God's grace we get to follow them.

You missed my point. Our capacity for forgiveness is considerably smaller than God's. And God's capacity for forgiveness is not limited in scope or nature, as is our's. It it presumptuous to assume we can even understand the scope and nature of God's forgiveness, or His eternal motives for that forgiveness. The two cannot be compared.

 

[JonC]

You missed my point. Our capacity for forgiveness is considerably smaller than God's. And God's capacity for forgiveness is not limited in scope or nature, as is our's. It it presumptuous to assume we can even understand the scope and nature of God's forgiveness, or His eternal motives for that forgiveness. The two cannot be compared.

I was referring to Eph. 4:22, not that the scope and nature of God's forgiveness is like ours but that forgiveness is forgiveness (Paul was not making a connection that was not really there).

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you (Eph. 4:22). In Matthew 6:12 Jesus makes the same association ("forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors). Another that comes to mind is Colossians 3:13 - "just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you."

 

[percho]

I have witnessed PSA presented in such a way as to validate the objection of Socinus (i.e., "divine justice demands that..." or "God first had to..."). If God had to receive payment in full in order to forgive or risk violating His own sense of "justice", then that is not forgiveness. The fallacy of that method of argument is that PSA itself is misrepresented by such wording.

God is not a slave to His nature, but instead is revealed by that nature. God's "justice" did not have to be met, nor did God have to receive payment in full in order to forgive (that would not be "forgiveness"). God Himself taking our sins and purchasing us with his own blood is not merely paving the way so that He can forgive us. It is the basis of forgiveness itself (we were purchased with a price). It goes back to that multifaceted gem. God's redemptive plan was in such as way so that He is both just and the justifier of those who are saved.

Did God by his Word determine before the foundation of the world to create a body of flesh in his image, sell that body of flesh under sin unto the death which was the power of the devil, and then redeem that body of flesh by the Son of God being born of woman, the Word made flesh, with it's life in the blood, that Son pouring out his life which was in the blood unto the death and then being raised in body of flesh with spiritual, inherent life? Destroying death and him who had the power of death, his works, Satan the devil?

? The Just One - The Word made flesh, the Son of God born of woman the seed of David/Abraham yet without sin.

The Just One died for OUR sins?

The Justifier Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, (The Just One) and God the Father, (The Justifer) who raised him from the dead;?

 

[JonC]

Did God by his Word determine before the foundation of the world to create a body of flesh in his image, sell that body of flesh under sin unto the death which was the power of the devil, and then redeem that body of flesh by the Son of God being born of woman, the Word made flesh, with it's life in the blood, that Son pouring out his life which was in the blood unto the death and then being raised in body of flesh with spiritual, inherent life? Destroying death and him who had the power of death, his works, Satan the devil?

? The Just One - The Word made flesh, the Son of God born of woman the seed of David/Abraham yet without sin.

The Just One died for OUR sins?

The Justifier Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, (The Just One) and God the Father, (The Justifer) who raised him from the dead;?

I don't know if you are questioning me or making a point. There have been several threads on this topic lately, but as of yet no one has denied penal substitution.

 

[percho]

I don't know if you are questioning me or making a point. There have been several threads on this topic lately, but as of yet no one has denied penal substitution.

I think we agree. To me PSA in some way is the righteousness of God. End of 2 C 5:24

 

[HankD]

...

The Just One died for OUR sins?

...

YES, Thank You Lord through all eternity!

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

[Yeshua1]

Were those who did not believe in Penal Substitution Theory (or those, like Anabaptists, who flatly reject the theory) holding a weaker faith, or a faith that was not consistent with their own belief?

Would argue that they would be like NT Wright in their views, as being sincere, but biblically incorrect in their understanding of the Atonement... That what they would view it as being would be an aspect of it, but the primary emphesis should always be on the penal substitionary aspect of the Cross, for one MUST hold to the Imputation by the father towards us the merits of Christ, and reject any Infusion grace views...

IF one has a real problem with Substitionary atonement, they would really be elevating human merits and downplaying the merits of Christ alone to save us!

 

[JamesL]

Would argue that they would be like NT Wright in their views, as being sincere, but biblically incorrect in their understanding of the Atonement... That what they would view it as being would be an aspect of it, but the primary emphesis should always be on the penal substitionary aspect of the Cross, for one MUST hold to the Imputation by the father towards us the merits of Christ, and reject any Infusion grace views...

IF one has a real problem with Substitionary atonement, they would really be elevating human merits and downplaying the merits of Christ alone to save us!

This is an example of PSA being thought of too narrowly.

The primary thrust of the New Covenant is not one of punishment, but one of cleansing.

The penal aspect cannot be ignored, but Christ died to cleanse us with His blood.

 

[Van]

Were those who did not believe in Penal Substitution Theory (or those, like Anabaptists, who flatly reject the theory) holding a weaker faith, or a faith that was not consistent with their own belief?

First PST is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. PST teaches that Christ died for the specific sins of those individual chosen to be saved. Both concepts are mistaken.

Christ died for the sin of the world. Any individual transferred into Christ will undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration, and arise in Christ a new creation, made perfect, righteous and holy.

 

[JonC]

Would argue that they would be like NT Wright in their views, as being sincere, but biblically incorrect in their understanding of the Atonement... That what they would view it as being would be an aspect of it, but the primary emphesis should always be on the penal substitionary aspect of the Cross, for one MUST hold to the Imputation by the father towards us the merits of Christ, and reject any Infusion grace views...

IF one has a real problem with Substitionary atonement, they would really be elevating human merits and downplaying the merits of Christ alone to save us!

I disagree. Here's why.

First, regarding NT Wright. Wright disagrees on the meaning of Justification (and righteousness). But his understanding of that term does not equate to denying penal substitution. Wright is Reformed in belief, and as he has stated repeatedly, he tends to view things through a Christus Victor perspective but he also affirms penal substitution atonement.

Second, the difference in other theories is not necessarily a denial of Penal substitution. In fact, it is rarely a denial of Penal substitution. We need to examine the beliefs of others more carefully than you have chosen to in your post. Those Anabaptists I mentioned did not "downplay the merits of Christ alone to save us". Quite frankly, while I disagree with their conclusions, your reply seems more esprit de corps confusion than biblical correction.

Lastly, we cannot choose how we want to view the Cross. It is wrong to insist that one view is primary. Context dictates the focus of any discussion of the cross. Sometimes Paul focuses on substitution, sometimes victory, and sometimes reconciliation. Never being able to see anything but Penal substitution is just as much error as never seeing Penal substitution.