The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

[The Biblicist]

I agree in that all theories fall short. There will always be a "but" or an "and also".

I think your theory falls short but I don't see how my theory falls short at all at any point? The resurrection is simply the confirmation that the penal substitutionary atonement was completely sufficient or else Christ would have remained in the grave. The resurrection is the confirmation that death, sin and the grave have been fully dealt with by the atonement. The resurrection is life as the consequence of PST. Life now rules where death reigned but PST is the basis for life being victorious over death, hell and the grave and life is the consequence of PST.

There are issues that I would love to see legitimately addressed and honestly laid out for examination. On the part of PST, there are issues of "forgiveness", of the nature of "sin" such as it can be transferred, of separating sin and sinner, ect.

This is unbelievable! How can anyone claim they believe in PST and yet claim these are honest issues to be settled? The very nature of PST is at stake by even raising these things as issues.

I think your problem is that you are reading too many men and not enough scripture. Don't you realize the very essence of PST is the basis of forgiveness as it is PST that completely satisfies the offence of sin against God and supplies the righteousness that is completely missing in the elect thus justifying them before the Law of God which formerly condemned them because they were without righteousness?


"Separating the sin from the sinner"???? That is why PST is a LEGAL covenant action provided by Christ as his covenant obligation whereas regeneration and its final sanctifying act is a PERSONAL covenant action provided by the Spirit as His covenant obligation.

PST is a legal covenant action because it deals with the legal grounds of sin, condemnation and justification BEFORE GOD.Thus giving the elect LEGAL standing due to substitutionary penal atonement. The NATURE of sin and the distinction between sin and the sinner has to do entirely with the third Person of the Godhead and his covenant obligation that deals with the PERSON of the elect.

Let me say it this way, PST is what Christ did FOR the elect, while the practical application to the person of the elect is what the Spirit of Christ does IN the elect. The former provides the legal basis for the latter. The former is the covenant obligation of the Second Person while the latter is the covenant obligation of the Third Person. The former has to do with my LEGAL PROBLEM with sin while the latter has to do with my PERSONAL PROBLEM with sin.

 

[JonC]

I find that dialogue with you is very difficult because having agreed on a point you seem intent on rowing back on it. I very much suspect that you do not agree, because if we did you would not keep throwing in your little comments and we could move onto something else. That is why I keep repeating the salient point.

'For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.........' It is only in the light of Christ's atoning death that the Resurrection can even be mentioned. Of course the resurrection is of vital importance, because it is the proof that Christ was not merely a man; that God has indeed been propitiated by His death, and that because He is the firstfruits from the dead, we can know that we shall arise at His second coming (v.23).

Tracts, by their very nature are brief and usually have to concentrate on just one or two things. For a tract to speak of the cross without the resurrection is incomplete, but to speak of the resurrection without the cross would be ridiculous.

I agree that all of these things work together in redemption. It was also because of Christ's ministry that the cross even occurred. But Paul focuses so much on the Resurrection I just don't think it can be ignored.

 

[JonC]

The very nature of PST is at stake by even raising these things as issues.

Exactly. When one holds such a theory as being above examination, that it is at stake, an honest examination of the theory is impossible. For fifteen hundred years the theory was not articulated as it now stands. But you suggest it is absolute truth? That is both amazing and proof of my point.

I think your problem is that you are reading too many men and not enough scripture.

We both think the same of each other. But we are both probably wrong. I know you are wrong, for I came across my concerns via Scripture. I would have dismissed them had I not researched what scholars have written on the matter and discovered I was not alone.

Go back to that question of forgiveness. You said that in the Old Testament the Jews sinned, offered an atonement (a sacrifice) and God forgave them. This you thought "proved" that we sin, the debt is paid in full, and then forgiven the debt. You were wrong (that it proved your point). I just let it go because I knew discussion would be fruitless.

And that is my point here. There are things that need to be examined. This does not mean they are incorrect, but that we should constantly and objectively examine our theories.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that all of these things work together in redemption. It was also because of Christ's ministry that the cross even occurred. But Paul focuses so much on the Resurrection I just don't think it can be ignored.

The resurrection is the logical and legal consequence of PST. The doctrine of justification is two sided. (1) Remission of sins; (2) imputed righteousenss (Rom. 6:6-8). The basis for obtaining both is PST.

Basically the gospel message is PST as PST is the basis whereby the Law declares justification instead of condemnation and eternal life instead of eternal damnation.

The false gospel is confusing Christ's covenant work of PST with the Spirit's covenant work in and through the elect. This is where the "Eucharistic theology" of Wright errs. He crosses the line and tries to merge the two in his doctrine of justification.

Theoretically this is where you are also erring when you raise the questions about distinguishing the "sinner from the sin" with regard to PST when it has nothing to do with PST which is solely the covenant obligation, thus covenant work of Christ, whereas, your issues belong solely to the covenant obligation, thus covenant work of the Spirit of God in and through us.

 

[The Biblicist]

Exactly. When one holds such a theory as being above examination, that it is at stake, an honest examination of the theory is impossible. For fifteen hundred years the theory was not articulated as it now stands. But you suggest it is absolute truth? That is both amazing and proof of my point.

So, you do not believe in PST at all, as you are admitting here "exactly" and "the theory is impossible." Thank you, finally you are out of the closet.

Go back to that question of forgiveness. You said that in the Old Testament the Jews sinned, offered an atonement (a sacrifice) and God forgave them.

No, I did not! The Scripture says it, not me! I quoted passage after passage that repeatedly said it in black and white and in that precise order. You had NOTHING to say in response because there is nothing you could say. Now, you try to blame me for saying it when the scriptures are what says it.

Where is your response to THE SCRIPTURES that I quoted, which say EXACTLY what PST says? Where????

 

[The Biblicist]

Here again is God's Word expressly stating PST in the clearest possible sacrificial language!


Le 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Le 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat on the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet smell to the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 5:18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with your estimation, for a trespass offering, to the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and knew it not, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he has done in trespassing therein.

Le 19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he has done: and the sin which he has done shall be forgiven him.

In each case the sin was committed first. Second, atonement followed for that sin. Third, the future tense "shall be" follows in regard to forgiveness.

The sacrificial system is set up to picture the atonement of Christ for sin. Every aspect had to be exact to the pattern given to Moses on the Mount, and then later to David. This included the brass altar and fire, both of which are common Biblical symbols for the wrath of God demonstrating that Christ represented by the lamb without spot or blemish must suffer the wrath of God against sin in the place of the sinner. The law required a penalty and that penalty equals God's wrath.

Moreover, on the day of atonement the High Priest would lay his hands upon the head of the sacrifice symbolizing the transfer of sins from the people to the sacrifice.

On judgement day the standard is to judge and reward them "according to their works" which demands exact equivilancy for their sin debts. In response, this required more than a human substitute but the God/man who can supply an infinite worth and infinite suffering (eternal) due to his Deity in order to redeem more than one person but all the elect.

Isaiah 53 spells out penal substitutionary atonement better than any passage in scripture.

Of course all of this was done within a covenant context. The Old Covenant sacrificial system symbolized the everlasting covenant between the Persons of the Godhead in behalf of the elect.

In Romans 8:28-37 no fallen creature has any part of the covenant obligations of this everlasting covenant but they are the objects, the recipients, not the participants "who....them he also."

In Ephesians 1:4-14 no fallen creature has nay part of the covenant obligations of redemption but they are the objects, the recipients, not the participants.

The idea of covenant participation of fallen sinners is the Old Covenant works covenant which cannot justify anyone.

Finally, the symbolism of the sacrifice demands that righteous demands of the law as well as the penal demands must be satisfied by Christ as "the lamb without spot or blemish" who died "for" our sins or in the place of the sinner under the wrath of God. - Thus penal substitutionary satisfaction of God's law.

 

[The Biblicist]

PST is stated in the clearest possible Biblical language repeatedly with regard to the very thing that no one can deny is the supreme type of Christ's covenant obligation - the Old Testament sacrifice. The High Priest or preist offering up the sacrifice is a type of Christ as our High Preist. The sacrifice is a type of Christ. The priest laying his hands on the head of the sacrifice and confessing the sins of the people who are a type of the elect clearly conveys a PENAL SUBSTITUTE. The consequence is repeatedly stated as "forgiveness of sins." The substitute animal is committed to FIRE which is the symbol of God's wrath and characteristic of Gehenna. The brass altar again is the ordinary symbol of God's judgement. Nothing could be clearer or made clearer to teach PST than the whole sacrificial law.

It is a LEGAL issue because sin is a legal issue. It is a LEGAL issue because justification is a legal term and legal issue that only has relevance as a term in a courtroom. Condemnation is a legal issue. Righteousness is a legal issue because "justify" has no meaning apart from righteousness. The law of God is simply the revealed will of God and the revealed will of God is a MORAL issue as the origin of God's will is HIS HEART, as it is the determined thoughts of His heart, revealed by His words. Righteousness is a LEGAL issue because it can be expressed in positive obedience to commandments which can be summarized by the word "LOVE" which is a MORAL value and God's nature with regard to the source of commandments/law can be summarized by the very same MORAL value - "God is LOVE."

In the New Testament, 2 Cor. 5:21 spells it out with such clarity that one must deny the obvious when interpreting it any other way. Romans 6:5-8 defines justification as remission of sins and imputation of righteousness NOT BASED ON OUR WORKS but based solely upon the covenant work of Christ in our behalf (Rom.3:24-26; 4:22-25) - again declaring the doctrine of PST.

The resurrection of Christ is the declaration that PST is the complete satisfaction of God's law and therefore the power of death, hell and the grave has been broken. The covenant obligation of the third Person of the Trinity is what makes this victory personal in application to the person of the elect.

Those who repudiate PST are those who confuse the covenant responsibilities of the Second Person with the Third Person of the Trinity. The first is LEGAL while the second is PERSONAL application.

 

[The Biblicist]

NT Wright builds his theology on duplicity. He uses pivotal Biblical words void of Biblical content. He redefines pivotal Biblical words to fit his "Eucharistic Theology." In essence he confuses the work of God FOR the elect in the body of Christ with the work of God IN the elect in the body of the elect.

The true gospel is PST as declared in the doctrine of Justification by faith that promises everlasting life. "Another gospel" always denies PST as restricted to the Person and works of Christ in his own body alone, but includes the work of God performed in the person and body of the elect. "Another gospel" always denies PST is strictly a LEGAL and POSITIONAL work performed by Christ in his own body in behalf of the elect but always includes the PERSON and ISSUE of dealing with sin in the body of the elect.

 

[JonC]

What I am saying is that I believe it is good to evaluate our theories, to include the one you seem to think dangerous to explore.

But this is an example of how it goes in this forum:

I Say, "How does your context not fall into the category of "an eye for an eye", but inverse of what Scripture intended?"

You Reply "God is just and Justifier".

I say "Yes, we all agree that God is just and justifier. But there are many ways, historically, that this has been understood and shown that do not follow the context in which you view the atonement. Why is your context correct?"

You Reply "Scripture says God is just and justifier. Are you denying Scripture???"

I say "No, I am not denying Scripture. I agree with the passage but am asking why the Latin view has proved the correct context in this case. How do you arrive at your context?"

You Reply "Because the Bible says that God is just and justifier. Can't you understand that???"

I say "Yes, I already agreed. But why, out of all the ways this has been viewed, is your context correct. How is it not "an eye for an eye" in the form denounced by Scripture."

You Reply "I already told you, because God is just and justifier. N.T. Wright is wrong, and he is Anglican. Karl Barth was an adulterer and John Calvin allowed murder."

"What on earth does N.T. Wright have to do with this??? I'm asking you to explain why your context is correct."

"You Reply "God is just and justifier and Karl Barth was an adulterer and C.S. Lewis denied a literal Hell."

I say "Who cares about N.T. Wright, Karl Barth and C.S. Lewis? Why change the topic? I am asking you to justify your position."

You say "God is just and justifier"

And we reach enough posts that the thread is closed.

 

[JonC]

So, you do not believe in PST at all, as you are admitting here "exactly" and "the theory is impossible." Thank you, finally you are out of the closet.





No, I did not! The Scripture says it, not me! I quoted passage after passage that repeatedly said it in black and white and in that precise order. You had NOTHING to say in response because there is nothing you could say. Now, you try to blame me for saying it when the scriptures are what says it.

Where is your response to THE SCRIPTURES that I quoted, which say EXACTLY what PST says? Where????

Where is your response to THE SCRIPTURES that I quoted?

Here - the Scriptures you quoted are correct. I never said otherwise. Please stop using them as a smoke screen. And please stop trying to bring others into the conversation. I don't care what NT Wright ...Or George MacDonald, CS Lewis, Karl Barth, John Calvin, or my mother has told you about the topic. This is diversion.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here - the Scriptures you quoted are correct. I never said otherwise. Please stop using them as a smoke screen. And please stop trying to bring others into the conversation. I don't care what NT Wright ...Or George MacDonald, CS Lewis, Karl Barth, John Calvin, or my mother has told you about the topic. This is diversion.

What??? You are the one that started bringing others into this conversation! Here are some reminders that you are the one that started to introduce others not me.

Yesterday I purchased Gustaf Aulén’s book in the kindle format (set me back 99 cents). I’m familiar with the historical perspective (the Christus Victor Theory),......we know it to be until Calvin and the Reformation (and as a correction to the RCC doctrine based on Aquinas' theory). I don't think the similarities can be denied (at lest not maintaining a sincere tone) and as Penal Substitution Theory was either invented or drawn from Scripture to correct the Aquinas' theory (specifically by Calvin, not Luther).....Morris recognizes......As Morris mentioned,.......As I read the introduction to this book (by Dindinger)...

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't know who you are talking about but it is certainly not me.

But this is an example of how it goes in this forum:

I Say, "How does your context not fall into the category of "an eye for an eye", but inverse of what Scripture intended?"

You are quoting God's justice system "an eye for an eye" or to say the same thing on judgement day "according to thy works." So, is it that you can't understand his justice system or just don't like it? PST is satisfaction of God's justice system - "according to thy works" or do you know of another justice system God will use on Judgement day? If that is his system on judgment day then don't you suppose Christ must satisfy it or else YOU WILL on judgment day?

I say "Yes, we all agree that God is just and justifier. But there are many ways,

Says who? Those you read? The Bible is not the author of confusion. There are not many ways. There are not one of many justice systems provided by God? There is but ONE! "according to thy works." There are not many standards of justice - just one - God's law. Hence, there is but one standard of justice satisfied by Christ - PST or taking the place of the elect and providing what the elect could not provide. There are not TWO different righteousnesses! The righteousness of the law is the REVEALED written rightousness of God - God's own moral righteousness as the law originates from God's own heart.

I say "No, I am not denying Scripture. I agree with the passage but am asking why the Latin view has proved the correct context in this case. How do you arrive at your context?"

You neither understand the text nor agree with it or else this kind of pluralistic nonsense would not occur. The sacrificial law does not present TWO different standards? Just ONE! You simply don't like what it presents "ACCORDING TO YOUR WORKS" which has one FINAL STANDARD for determination - "
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

The very same standard violated is the very same standard that determines justification or damnation. ONE and the same. That ONE moral standard is the revelation of God's own moral righteousness not only because it originates with his heart but both can be fully described by one word "Love" as to keep the commandments is "loving" God and man (1 Jn. 5:3-4) and "God IS LOVE." Love is a MORAL value and therefore God's righteousness is a MORAL righteousness unless you have some other kind of love originating from God????????

How is it not "an eye for an eye" in the form denounced by Scripture."

Straw man argument! There is no issue between this standard and God's law on judgement day (Rom. 2:6-11) for justification and damnation! PST satisfied that standard for the elect.

You are misrepresenting me, you are misrepresenting God's word and you are creating out of thin air pluralistic ways and straw men arguments.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't care what NT Wright .....This is diversion.

No, it is not a diversion. When anyone rejects PST they must devise some other standard of righteousness than provided by God, some other system of justice than provided by God. That is precisely what you and Wright have in common and whether you admit it or not, such deviation is a repudiation of the very essence of the gospel.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How is it not "an eye for an eye" in the form denounced by Scripture."

Just to touch on this very briefly: as individuals, we are not to take revenge, but in Romans 12:19, that is for the very reason that justice and retribution are God's responsibility. The law and earthly rulers are specifically given responsibility to 'execute wrath on him who practises evil' (Romans 13:1-7). If earthly rulers have this right and duty, how much more the 'Judge of all the earth' (Genesis 18:25)?

 

[The Biblicist]

Jon it seems your problems with PST is based primarily upon what you perceive to be contradictions. For example, you believe "eye for an eye" is contrary to God's system of justice and yet it is God who is the source of that law and gave that law. You believe the cross is somehow contrary to Christ's sinless obedience to the Law as though you cannot distinguish between his active and passive obedience.

 

[JonC]

No, it is not a diversion. When anyone rejects PST they must devise some other standard of righteousness than provided by God, some other system of justice than provided by God. That is precisely what you and Wright have in common and whether you admit it or not, such deviation is a repudiation of the very essence of the gospel.

I never rejected that both Wright and I see merit in the historical position. That does not mean we see eye to eye. Both you and the Roman Catholics see substitution in the atonement, but that doesn't mean you see eye to eye.

What I question of PST is neither the P nor the S, but your T (how you put them together).

You claim to believe a theology separate from the Reformed Church, but it is telling that here you base salvation itself on Reformed doctrine (specifically, Calvin's).
And I have not, BTW, denounced PST. I said I agree with Leon Morris that some presentations have issues and none of the theories completely encompass the atonement.

 

[JonC]

Just to touch on this very briefly: as individuals, we are not to take revenge, but in Romans 12:19, that is for the very reason that justice and retribution are God's responsibility. The law and earthly rulers are specifically given responsibility to 'execute wrath on him who practises evil' (Romans 13:1-7). If earthly rulers have this right and duty, how much more the 'Judge of all the earth' (Genesis 18:25)?

I agree with your interpretation of that passage. Originally "an eye for an eye" was a constraint anyway.

I also appreciate your understanding (I think) that I am not denying PST as much as I am asking how you (and others here) would deal with "issues" within the theory. From previous discussions, I would at least hope that you understand I accept both the penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement as necessary for our salvation (and biblical). That said, people put them together differently. Martin Luther accepted substitutionary atonement (maybe we could even say a penal substitution theory, I'm not sure). But he did not hold PST as developed (or articulated) by John Calvin.

As we look back through history, there is no evidence that PST existed as articulated today before the 16th century. The primary argument from Reformed theology is that the elements were there but not assembled. And I agree. The elements were there - both penal and substitution exist throughout Scripture and in the writings of the early church.

What I am asking here, against my better judgment (nothing against you, but we all know how this is going to go), is how these penal substitution building blocks came to be put together. In other words, I agree with most of the Reformed commentators that the "bricks" were there. We agree on who set the mortar. I am asking why one design was chosen over another.

When did "sin" become something external to the sinner? When did punishment become directed at rather than the sinner? When did punishment become transferable? Is this the "forgiveness" that we are to use as an example (forgive as you have been forgiven)? Why does God's wrath have to be appeased for forgiveness? And these are just a few.

On the other side of the argument, we could ask questions as well. How is God just and the justifier apart from a penal substitution? How are men reconciled to God? What is the purpose of the cross if not the propitiation of man's sin? How can you ignore passages that specifically state the atonement as a substitution?

 

[JonC]

So, is it that you can't understand ....

It may be that you have no explanation, but no, it is not that I cannot understand. I was asking for your position, how you would address those concerns. Not looking for a fight.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your questions assume none can obtain their view of PST by simply studying the Bible but must have somehow constructed it from reading uninspired men's opinions. You are adapting Satan's approach. He asked questions that raised doubt about clear and explicitly stated truth. No truth is more clearly and explicity stated than PST - none!

If you want to know how different men developed it historically than go read historical theology. I have no interest in the subject as I have not developed my view from anyone outside the scriptures. No, I have not read Calvin on this. No, I have not read Luther on this. No, I have not read any Roman Catholic theologian on this. I have simply developed it from reading Scripture.

When did "sin" become something external to the sinner?

According to who? The bible speaks of sin abstractly but as in all abstract instruction there is no reality apart from a concrete sinner.

When did punishment become directed at rather than the sinner?

It seems that you think abstract teaching demands a different kind of doctrine or separation from the sinner? Does such a concept have to originate with men to be legitimate? Why cannot it originate by revelation from God and with God and God's system of justice?

When did punishment become transferable?

In whose system of justice? Some human tradition? Or in God's system of justice? Do you need a tradition of man in order to validate God's Word? Ceremonial revelation is not sufficient for you?

Is this the "forgiveness" that we are to use as an example (forgive as you have been forgiven)?

So you are trying to make this walk on all fours? Should we first assume to be God in order to make this work consistently or can we forgive as God forgives without being God??? The idea is merely unconditional forgiveness, he is not including the whole doctrine of atonement as necessary to forgive another sinner!!!! You don't have to be God to forgive others. You don't have to be perfect to forgive others. The idea is simplistic. God forgave us when we PERSONALLY did not deserve it but on the merits of Christ alone. We can forgive others not because they deserve it but because we have been commanded to as those who don't deserve forgiveness.

Why does God's wrath have to be appeased for forgiveness?

This is like asking why do we have to appease the wrath of a mad dog we abused in order not to be bitten! God's wrath has a JUST basis called His law and justice requires a penalty for violating law. The wrath is appeased when the just penalty is satisfied.

On the other side of the argument, we could ask questions as well. How is God just and the justifier apart from a penal substitution?

He is not, simply because we would have to trash the bible to come up with some other basis for salvation. Total depravity denies any other solution.

How are men reconciled to God?

By PST - just that simple!

What is the purpose of the cross if not the propitiation of man's sin?

Is there some other problem between God and man other than Sin? Is there some other source of what is wrong in this creation? Is there some other source of all the wretchedness in this life? Is there something else that separates man from God?

How can you ignore passages that specifically state the atonement as a substitution?

It seems to be pretty easy by just raising questions to place it in doubt?

 

[JonC]

Your questions assume none can obtain their view of PST by simply studying the Bible but must have somehow constructed it from reading uninspired men's opinions.

Not at all. You are projecting your assumptions on me (you made the false accusation of me a few posts back). My comment was that all of those things are in Scripture. I was asking how you came to put them together.

You are adapting Satan's approach. He asked questions that raised doubt about clear and explicitly stated truth. No truth is more clearly and explicity stated than PST - none!

You are adapting a cultic (or Catholic) approach - “God told me, don’t question it, just believe”. Your position is not the historical view, so how did this “obvious” articulation stay hidden for so long? Was it “hidden knowledge” for a time, known only by some underground “true church” until John Calvin caught wind of it and let the cat out of the bag? And do you guys have secret handshakes and passwords?

In other words, stop making assumptions. I have only asked you a few questions. If you are unable to answer then so be it.

If you want to know how different men developed it historically than go read historical theology?

I know how PST developed. I am asking why the context is appropriate (not even saying it is not appropriate).

I have not developed my view from anyone outside the scriptures. No, I have not read Calvin on this. No, I have not read Luther on this. No, I have not read any Roman Catholic theologian on this. I have simply developed it from reading Scripture.

You don’t have to read them (and Luther did not hold PST). The ideology is a part of our culture, particularly our church culture. Since you cannot recognize this, I think it fair to say you read Scripture less objectively than you had initially thought.

I understand both PST and your version of PST. I was asking about the reasoning and context of your theory, how it came to be articulated as PST. Since you cannot comprehend the other positions but instead insist that this “truth” of Scripture has remained hidden until the Reformers discovered it in the 16th century, and then you (uninfluenced by the Enlightenment and the Reformation, discovered it even later straight from the Bible) I highly suspect you are not the person to ask. You really don’t know why you make those assumptions (even if they are correct).