Penal Substitution

This is a hypocritical response and I will demonstrate why it is a hypocritical response. On one hand you claim this point makes no difference to the ultimate question but on the other hand your arguments to support that ulimate question depend entirely upon this very issue you claim does not matter. It matters for you when you defend your position with regard to that question but it does not matter to you when it is proven that your argument based on that point is completely false! You can't have your cake and eat it too! If it does not matter than STOP defending your position by that supposedly irrelevant point. However, it does matter, because the truth that God's law is inseparable from God's nature (LOVE) totally annihilates your whole position.

 

Your response is simply a red herring as no one, and I mean no one denies the sacrificial offering had to be "without spot and blemish" otherwise it could not satisfy the demand of the Law to be righteous but that in no way denies it had to equally suffer death to satisfy the other demand of the Law which is retributive justice against sin.

Your view is simply a HALF truth and thus a perversion of the truth.

 

You talk about "smoke screens" this takes the cake. No, you did not ask me to "prove divine justice in salvation is retributive justice" (although that was the larger question) but you asked me to prove that in God's system of justice if the righteous can justly suffer for the unrighteous. That was the immediate question I responded to! I proved that principle in reverse from a negative perspective with the case of Adam and "many." God could and did justly condemn "many" for the act of one man and therefore God can and did justify the unrigheous by the suffering of one righteous man.

 

Are you denying that Christ was the sacrificial offering on the cross for sinners? I never mentioned the Old Testament sacrificial type! Is not the very sacrificial language "without spot or blemish" directly applied to Christ by Peter? Did not John the Baptist say "Behold THE LAMB OF GOD that taketh away the sin of the world"???? We are indeed discussing the sacrificial offering in its ultimate Biblical application.

We have nailed down our framework repeatedly and the only way you have been able to escape the evidence is by using certain escape hatches (thus vital for the survival of your theory) which when I confront all of a sudden become non-essentials and off topic issues.

 

Your arguments are laced with escape hatch definitions, without which your arguments simply vanish! You can't have your cake and eat it too! If your arguments rest upon such irrelevant definitions and yet you deny they are relevant and refuse to deal with objections that prove they are relevant then why are we continuing this discussion as it can only be an endless irrational loop of hopeless argumentation? You don't have the basics correct and therefore you can't have the proper outcome correct. It is just that simple. If you are not going to face the very false definitions and arguments your arguments consist of, there is no point in furthering this discussion.

 

But that is not what Peter said! He said that the Just "suffered" for the unjust and so this is not generic substitutionary atonement but substitutionary suffering by the Just for the unjust. All suffering by fallen mankind has its root in sin and all suffering by mankind has its end in death. Death is the PENAL consequence of sin and therefore suffering is the PENAL consequence of our sins, so "substitutionary suffering" is nothing less (it is much more than but at minimum nothing less than) PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY atonement. If Paul could not say Christ died for "my" sins he certainly could not say Christ died for "OUR" sins or anyone elses sins. So your corporate level distinction versus personal level with regard to the atonement is pointless as application is where the rubber meets the highway and application is always personal/individual.

 

What you mean to say is that it "looks more like the RCC and the Reformers than it does Scripture" FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE! But we are denying YOUR PERSPECTIVE is scriptural, so you are charging us by way of your own presuppositions. Let's remain objective and see whose position is more scriptural.

 

You are providing arguments against our position and those arguments are laced with false definitions and false reasonings without which your arguments simply vanish away. Stop using those arguments AGAINST our position if you do not want to be held accountable for them. Stop claiming they are irrelevant when your argument against our position depends on their validity if you don't want to be confronted and held accountable for them.

 

As far as I can see, you have not attempted to reply to the above post. Please do! Why? Because I believe your arguments against our position rest upon failure to understand basic truth which will be demonstrated by your answers to the above questions.

 

You don't understand! We already have done so very thoroughly and the only reaction against our evidence has been your responses that are laced with and thoroughly dependent upon what you claim to be irrelevant issues. Remove these "irrelevant issues" from your arguments and you have no arguments at all. Therefore, our arguments stand as solid Biblical attestation to our position.

For example, your false dichotomy that one must embrace either/or restorative verus retributive justice is false - a red herring when the atonement is inclusive of both.

For example, your false dichotomy between the Law of God and the Person of God when the law of God is defined by Christ in essence to be the "love" of God.

Your argumentation demonstrates lack of understanding of some very basic Biblical truths.

 

Any reasonable dialogue is impossible with a person who responds by arguments against what their opponent has said that is filled with and based upon falsehoods, which that person refuses to be confronted with. I bow out of this argumentation simply because it is a waste of my time.