• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Penal Substitution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, I am not joking. Even in respect to Er we are dealing with restorative justice
Explain to me exactly how Er was restored.
(and with Nineveh also, which is why Jonah did not desire to obey).
What has Nineveh to do with Er? Stick to the point.
I think you are confusing restorative justice with reconciliation. I do not mean men are not judged as guilty, but that forgiveness and justice are not dependent on punishment satisfying what the Law demanded.
I do not think you can find much in the way of sin under the Law which did not involve sacrifice. There was restoration, but the restoration came through the shedding of blood which pointed forward to the death of Christ (eg. Numbers 15:22-29). It was therefore retributive-- atonement had to be made (v.25). 'For without the shedding of blood there is no remission' (Hebrews 9:22). You may decide that the sacrifices were not punishment-- I think the bulls etc. might beg to differ.
But again, this is not the problem. Should I be wrong in my view this would not make you correct in yours. Your theory stands upon an assumption you have yet demonstrated to be biblical.
Well you have failed to disprove any of what I have written. Whatever you think of my OPs, you cannot deny that they are peppered with Biblical references, whereas you cannot even express your disagreement in Biblical terms.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But even there (in the Old Testament) divine justice is not retributive justice (the Law does not demand sins be punished but that the sinner be punished for sins committed).
This is daft! How do you punish a sin??? Can you execute idolatry, or flog adultery? False dichotomy again!
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I responded twice to your interpretation of Isaiah 53:10-11, echoing Peter's words recorded in Acts that it was God's will.

I went back to the now closed thread to see if you responded to the particulars of my post. I found no such responses by you. Perhaps you are thinking of an earlier post on another thread where i quoted the same texts. However, in no previous thread did I point out the particulars of verses 10-11 as I have in the post that you did not respond to. Perhaps you overlooked it as there are no responses to the particulars of my post on that thread. I will repeat the post and please pay attention to the particulars that I put into rhetorical questions:

Isa. 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

One cannot get any clearer than the above language. Was the Son the object of God's wrath? ANSWER: "it pleased the Lord to bruise him....put him to grief". How could God be "pleased" to do that if there were no JUST basis to do it? Answer: he could not apart from a JUST basis! What is his purpose for being pleased, for bruising him, for putting him to grief? Answer: "make his soul an offering for FOR SIN." Why would he make such an offering for sin that included brusing him and putting him to grief? ANSWER: "he shall see the TRAVAIL of his soul AND BE SATISFIED." Why must he be "satisfied"? Better yet, WHY would it take this to "satisfy" him? Would not his perfect righteousness "satisfy" him sufficiently? That is your theory! There is something beyond mere sinless perfection that needs satisfaction that only be accomplished by being "pleased" to "bruise him" "put him to grief" and "travail" as a "sin offering"!! It is his wrath against sin and Christ legally taking the place of sinners and sin on the cross! Thus a PENAL satisfaction!

Now, this is the obvious import of these two texts in this context and you must EXPLAIN IT AWAY.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
This is daft! How do you punish a sin??? Can you execute idolatry, or flog adultery? False dichotomy again!
Exactly. You can't punish a sin any more than God could justly punish one person or group for the sins of another. Neither can you transfer sin or substitute one for the sins of another. It is, as you say, daft. The issue is sin as a power and sinful actions as manifestations of a sinners sinfulness. This is the issue we are discussing- God cannot justly punish Jesus for the sins of another because the sin is inseparably linked to the sinner. Jesus can, however, bear our sins corporately...not only our sins but the sins of the whole world because He became a curse and tasted death for us.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I went back to the now closed thread to see if you responded to the particulars of my post. I found no such responses by you. Perhaps you are thinking of an earlier post on another thread where i quoted the same texts. However, in no previous thread did I point out the particulars of verses 10-11 as I have in the post that you did not respond to. Perhaps you overlooked it as there are no responses to the particulars of my post on that thread. I will repeat the post and please pay attention to the particulars that I put into rhetorical questions:

Isa. 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

One cannot get any clearer than the above language. Was the Son the object of God's wrath? ANSWER: "it pleased the Lord to bruise him....put him to grief". How could God be "pleased" to do that if there were no JUST basis to do it? Answer: he could not apart from a JUST basis! What is his purpose for being pleased, for bruising him, for putting him to grief? Answer: "make his soul an offering for FOR SIN." Why would he make such an offering for sin that included brusing him and putting him to grief? ANSWER: "he shall see the TRAVAIL of his soul AND BE SATISFIED." Why must he be "satisfied"? Better yet, WHY would it take this to "satisfy" him? Would not his perfect righteousness "satisfy" him sufficiently? That is your theory! There is something beyond mere sinless perfection that needs satisfaction that only be accomplished by being "pleased" to "bruise him" "put him to grief" and "travail" as a "sin offering"!! It is his wrath against sin and Christ legally taking the place of sinners and sin on the cross! Thus a PENAL satisfaction!

Now, this is the obvious import of these two texts in this context and you must EXPLAIN IT AWAY.
I needn't explain it away. Christ bore our sins, was numbered among the transgressors, the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by his scourging we are healed. All of us have gone astray but God has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

You insist this includes God being wrathful to Christ, punishing Him for our sins with our punishment in order to satisfy the demands of the Law. This is extra-biblical, and whether right or wrong the burden of proof is with you.

You see, this is part of the road block we run into. It would be easy if you or I were dismissing Scripture. But we aren't. You are adding a context to Scripture, and whether right or wrong I am asking how and why you have come to that conclusion.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I needn't explain it away. .

That is precisely what you have done! You simply ignore the specifics of the post. Look at the questions and look at the words the questions are linked with in the text.

God does not "bruise" and "put to grief" anyone just for the fun of it but it is the JUST recompense in being an "offering for sin". Your view does not need God being "satisfied" by infliction at all. Bruising and putting to grief is by definition infliction. It is this infliction by God that brought "travail" upon his "soul" and it is this kind of offering for sin that SATISFIES God just recompense toward sin and sinners. That is the natural import of the language. You either have to dissect and separate the words from the sense and meaning of the text or ignore it. you have chosen to ignore it.
 
Last edited:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Exactly. You can't punish a sin any more than God could justly punish one person or group for the sins of another. The issue is sin as a power and sinful actions as manifestations of a sinners sinfulness. This is the issue we are discussing- God cannot justly punish Jesus for the sins of another because the sin is inseparably linked to the sinner. Jesus can, however, bear our sins corporately...not only our sins but the sins of the whole world because He became a curse and tasted death for us.

Certainly God can JUSTLY punish Jesus for the sins of others simply because he is acting as a SUBSTITUTE for others. What don't you understand about being a substitute?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
That is precisely what you have done! You simply ignore the specifics of the post. Look at the questions and look at the words the questions are linked with in the text.

God does not "bruise" and "put to grief" anyone just for the fun of it but it is the JUST recompense in being an "offering for sin". Your view does not need God being "satisfied" by infliction at all. Bruising and putting to grief is by definition infliction. It is this infliction by God that cause God to be "satisfied" with this "offering for sin." That is the natural import of the langauge. You either have to dissect and separate the words from the sense and meaning of the text or ignore it. you have chosen to ignore it.
The Father offered Him as a guilt offering. It was the Fathers will to crush Him, putting Him to grief. If He would render Himself a guilt offering He will see His offspring, prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hands.

What part of that says God was wrathful to Christ by punishing Him with the punishment due our sins in order to satisfy the demands of the Law in our stead as our forgiveness? Do you at least see that you are applying a context you systematically developed to this passage, or do you truly not understand the difference between the actual text and your interpretation?
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Father offered Him as a guilt offering. It was the Fathers will to crush Him, putting Him to grief. If He would render Himself a guilt offering He will see His offspring, prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hands.

What part of that says God was wrathful to Christ by punishing Him with the punishment due our sins in order to satisfy the demands of the Law in our stead as our forgiveness? Do you at least see that you are applying a context you systematically developed to this passage, or do you truly not understand the difference between the actual text and your interpretation?

What is the just basis for the Father to crush anyone or put anyone to grief or put any soul in "travail" in connection with an "offering for sin"? What basis would any judge have to bring travail upon anyone who stood before them?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Certainly God can JUSTLY punish Jesus for the sins of others simply because he is acting as a SUBSTITUTE for others. What don't you understand about being a substitute?
I understand the concept. But you are assuming God would be just in doing this because you are assuming retributive justice is biblical.

Is there a passage that states an innocent man, under the Law, may be justly punished for the crimes of a guilty man as a way of satisfying justice? No, of course not. In fact, Proverbs 17:15 says exactly the opposite. So why do you think it is just to substitute a innocent man for a guilty one?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
What is the just basis for the Father to crush anyone or put anyone to grief or put any soul in "travail" in connection with an "offering for sin"? What basis would any judge have to bring travail upon anyone who stood before them?
The basis is God Himself. But this is off topic. I am asking for a reason to assume the contextual framework PSA does when it comes to the atonement.

Why do you believe it is just to punish a righteous man in the place of a guilty man? You said because this is what a substitute is...But that's circular reasoning. Why is it just? How does this satisfy justice?
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I understand the concept. But you are assuming God would be just in doing this because you are assuming retributive justice is biblical.

Is there a passage that states an innocent man, under the Law, may be justly punished for the crimes of a guilty man as a way of satisfying justice? No, of course not. In fact, Proverbs 17:15 says exactly the opposite. So why do you think it is just to substitute a innocent man for a guilty one?

On the great day of Atonement an innocent lamb is laid upon the altar and the High priest confesses the sins of all the people over it while laying his hands on its head. This is the great type of Christ "the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." He is "made to be sin for us WHO KNEW NO SIN"

You are tripping over your own feet and entangled in foolish thinking as this truth is self-evident in the types and in language you repeatedly explain away when the simple meaning is starring you right in the eyes.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The basis is God Himself.

Yes, and He is HOLY and JUST and that is precisely why his law is HOLY and JUST. The truth is looking you in the face but you can't see.



The basis is God Himself.But this is off topic. I am asking for a reason to assume the contextual framework PSA does when it comes to the atonement.

Why do you believe it is just to punish a righteous man in the place of a guilty man? You said because this is what a substitute is...But that's circular reasoning. Why is it just? How does this satisfy justice?

Because God's Word says it is just! "He who KNEW NO SIN was MADE SIN"! Who made this innocent person to be sin? God did and that is what Isaiah 53 says over and over again but you just explain away the obvious. Why is it just for a person who knew no sin to be made sin for us? Why do you think it is just to slay a lamb without spot and blemish as a "sin offering" for God's people? Did not Christ freely offer himself to "satisfy" God's wrath against the sinner for his sins? It is so self-evident!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yes, and He is HOLY and JUST and that is precisely why his law is HOLY and JUST. The truth is looking you in the face but you can't see.
Yes, the Law is holy and just. So is forgiveness and grace and divine wrath and justification and providence. Because of God, not because of His law. You seem to have a high regard for God's law, and this is a good thing. That you hold God's law as binding upon all God is rather than an expression of God Himself is a bit troubling, but not so much that we can't discuss the matter.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
On the great day of Atonement an innocent lamb is laid upon the altar and the High priest confesses the sins of all the people over it while laying his hands on its head. This is the great type of Christ "the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." He is "made to be sin for us WHO KNEW NO SIN"

You are tripping over your own feet and entangled in foolish thinking as this truth is self-evident in the types and in language you repeatedly explain away when the simple meaning is starring you right in the eyes.
We already agreed that the Father offered Christ as a guilt offering, as a propitiation for the sins of the world. Yes, God made Him that knew no sin to be sin for us. Agreed.

But that's not the topic of the OP. I am not defending what I believe on this thread and am starting to wonder if you are trying to conceal a flaw in your view by consistently challenging what you think I believe. The topic is PSA as Martin has defined and defended the theory. I've only identified ONE issue that needs to be addressed before looking at others.

Before we can move on you need to prove that it is just to condemn the righteous in order to justify the wicked.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, God made Him that knew no sin to be sin for us. Agreed.......Before we can move on you need to prove that it is just to condemn the righteous in order to justify the wicked.

Who is it that is being made sin? Answer; THE JUST! Who is it that he is being made sin FOR? Answer: THE UNJUST!! Who is it that makes him so? Answer: GOD! Therefore, God says it is JUST to condemn THE JUST in behalf "for" "THE UNJUST" in order to JUSTIFY the wicked!

Who is it that demands a ceremonial sacrifice that is "without spot and blemish"? Answer: God What does the typology of "without spot and blemish" mean? Answer: the type of THE JUST. Who is the typological Just sacrificed in behalf of? Answer; THE UNJUST. What is the nature of this sacrifice? Answer "FOR SIN" "FOR US" not either/or but BOTH. Why does God need satisfaction by sacrifice for sin and sinners? Answer: Because God's holy Law demands penal consequences for violation of its holy standards. Why does the Law's penal consequences need to be satisfied? Answer: Because God is Just and Holy!! Who demanded the penal conquences for violation of His Law? Answer: God did. Who satisfies both the righteous and penal demands of His Law? Answer: Jesus voluntarily satisfies both in behalf of, for, in the place of His people.

Jon, I just don't know why you can't see the obvious? Your questions are nothing but loops of irrationale.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, the Law is holy and just. So is forgiveness and grace and divine wrath and justification and providence.

There is no forgiveness where there is no satisfaction of the Law's penalty! There is no grace where there is no satisfier of the Law's penalty.


Because of God, not because of His law.

First, the law in principle IS LOVE. His Law is simply a revelation of His own Person and personal righteousness (Rom. 3:21-22). The Law manifests His holiness and defines for us what it is to be JUST. His law is more perfectly manifested in the LIFE of Christ. To separate God's Law as principle from God is to annihilate God Himself. That is precisely why Jesus denied he had come to destroy the Law but rather to fulfill it as that is the only possible response God can have to his law.

I think you are reasoning from the Phariseeical perspective of the law, not according to its principle but according to its letter and as a Jewish covenant. That is entirely a different thing altogether.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
There is no forgiveness where there is no satisfaction of the Law's penalty! There is no grace where there is no satisfier of the Law's penalty.




First, the law in principle IS LOVE. His Law is simply a revelation of His own Person and personal righteousness (Rom. 3:21-22). The Law manifests His holiness and defines for us what it is to be JUST. His law is more perfectly manifested in the LIFE of Christ. To separate God's Law as principle from God is to annihilate God Himself. That is precisely why Jesus denied he had come to destroy the Law but rather to fulfill it as that is the only possible response God can have to his law.

I think you are reasoning from the Phariseeical perspective of the law, not according to its principle but according to its letter and as a Jewish covenant. That is entirely a different thing altogether.
I am reasoning from the standpoint God's righteousness in Christ is a righteous manifested apart from the Law.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Part Three

It has been suggested that Christ was not made ‘sin’ in 2 Cor. 5:21, but a ‘sin offering.’ There are three reasons why this suggestion should be rejected:

Firstly, hamartia, the Greek word translated ‘sin’ never means ‘sin offering’ in the New Testament, though it sometimes does elsewhere.

Secondly, hamartia occurs twice in the verse, and it would be strange if it had two meanings in one sentence; but to say, “God made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us” makes no sense.

Thirdly, in John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of type of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? Well where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a type of Christ? He is a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

Next, we come to Galatians 3:10-13. God’s law pronounces a curse on law-breakers: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (v.10; c.f. Deuteronomy 27:26; James 2:10). We ourselves are cursed, for none of us have continued in God’s holy law. But, ‘Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law….’ How has He done that? ‘…..having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”’ (v.13; Deuteronomy 21:23). In God’s law it is written, so, as Luther says, ‘Christ hung on a tree; therefore Christ was accursed of God’ (Luther: Commentary on Galatians).

So what does it mean to be ‘accursed of God’? Let Paul answer first: ‘These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thessalonians 1:10). And then the Lord Jesus: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell” (Luke 12:4-5; c.f. Matthew 25:41). So what does hell feel like? Well, we may think of darkness, pain and, according to Paul, separation from the presence of God, save perhaps for His abiding wrath. We may add, perhaps, the mocking and abuse of others (c.f. Isaiah 14:10-11). All these things came upon the Christ. Of the pain it is hardly necessary to speak, save to note that it could not be diminished in any degree. Our Lord was offered wine mixed with myrrh, but He would not take it (Mark 15:23); it was an analgesic, but He must suffer the full agony of sin and the wrath of the Father against sin.

Of the darkness, we note that, ‘When the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour’ (Mark 15:33). By this time I suppose that the two thieves had fallen silent; the crowd had dispersed; even the Pharisees had got bored with mocking and gone home, and John had taken our Lord’s mother into his own house (John 19:27). The Lord Jesus hung alone—so utterly alone that about the ninth hour He cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Hitherto, He had enjoyed the closest imaginable relationship with the Father (Mark 1:11; 9:7; John 8:29; 16:32). Even in Gethsemane, when He was almost overcome with the prospect of the horror that was approaching Him, the Father sent an angel to strengthen Him (Luke 22:43). But now, on the cross, His greatest extremity He must endure alone. He was ‘made sin’ and the Father, whose eyes are too pure to look upon sin, turned away from Him. I know that some people find this hard to accept, but it must be true because the Holy Spirit has preserved His words for us. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning? O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent” (Psalm 22:1-2). Although it was 3 o’clock in the afternoon, it was the ‘night season’ for darkness had fallen upon the land, as if to hide the shame of the God-man made sin. For those hours, as a Man, He was quite literally God-forsaken.

But at the end of the ninth hour, the sun came out again. God’s outraged justice had been satisfied; propitiation had been made, save for the actual act of dismissing His spirit which followed almost at once. God could now be ‘just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus’ (Rom. 3:26). The way to heaven was now wide open, the veil was torn asunder, the one acceptable sacrifice for sin had been made.

One question remains to be answered: how could Christ’s suffering, which lasted just a few hours, pay an infinite price? How could an infinite punishment be borne in a finite time? The answer is that an ordinary person, even if their sacrifice were acceptable to God, which is isn’t, would indeed need to suffer for an infinite period. But the Lord Jesus Christ was not an ordinary person. Just as sin against God is especially heinous because of His infinite worth and goodness, so Christ’s propitiation is of infinite value in the eyes of the Father because of His own infinite worth. Therefore the sufferings of Christ were infinite in value because He is infinitely worthy. Scripture attests that ‘by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified’ (Hebrews 10:14). Finally, the Father’s satisfaction with Christ’s atonement is proved by the fact that He raised Him from the dead.

You have done an incredible job in laying the truth out clearly and forcefully. Jon has an endless loop of irrationality in his line of arguments. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am reasoning from the standpoint God's righteousness in Christ is a righteous manifested apart from the Law.

There is no such thing as righteousness at the expense of justice! No such righteousness of that kind exists in our court systems or in God's court system.

Paul is referring to the life AND death of Christ as the satisfaction for sin in this context (Rom. 3:19-25).The righteousness manifested apart from the Law is found in the LIFE and DEATH of Christ - the incarnation and sacrifice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top