Featured Retribultion Theology

I agree that divine justice could not be satisfied by God punishing Jesus as a substitute for the guilty.

 

That was Scripture (I copied and pasted it from the Bible). Romans 8:3. And you have my apology as I assumed it would be recognized as such.

Here are a few more to consider:

Galatians 3:13-14 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Romans 5:15-17 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

And again, I am not sure how you can believe that Christ did not suffer the consequences of sin. He became a curse for us. He bore our sins. He died on a cross, was laid in a tomb and raised on the third day. He was obedient even to the death on a cross.

 

I understand it is to you, but not to Christianity itself. We can use "unorthodox" as a sort of club all we want, but in the end Lutherans, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Mennonites....and many more....hold to a theory of atonement that is not of Calvinistic origin.

 

Brother, again you are confusing terms.

Retributive justice focuses on punishing an offense.

If I receive a parking ticket retributive justice demands it be paid. The offence must be punished, the payment must be received. My friend can pay the ticket for me and the demands of retributive justice are met.

Restorative justice focuses on repairing the harm from the crime.

A man kills a child. Restorative justice demands that the harm from the crime be repaired. Nothing can be done towards the child, or the family. But the community is injured. The man is removed from the community - not necessarily out of retribution for killing the child but to repair harm to the community. The man's friend can't take that punishment for the man because the focus is not on punishment but on the community itself.

Here is one article that may help you understand the difference.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09627250508553613?journalCode=rcjm20

 

So you say (ignoring the fact that this has actually been debated for centuries, with many theories coming along before the idea God was wrathful towards Christ).

Yet there is not even one passage that presents God as looking upon his Son as evil. Not one. There is not one passage that has God proclaiming from the clouds "behold my Son, whose righteousness is as filthy rags" and then being wrathful towards him and separating from Him on the cross. Not one. For 15 centuries this view was unorthodox. Should all of Christianity change because a new theory came along?

There are, however, many verses that I can lean on to prove my understanding. Just ask and I'll provide it. I've offered over and over and over again with no takers (except @Martin Marprelate who questioned my comment that Christ, while never sinning, experienced the consequences of sin).

 

You won't. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew....mostly, but not English.

When it says the "wages of sin is death" it is speaking of the "consequences of sin". That is what we were facing. Penalty for sin is just as good. Through one man sin entered the world and through sin death. Jesus had to suffer the consequences of sin, which is death. He had to die in order that we might be saved.

 

We are talking about the same thing....right? The theory that was not articulated until Calvin placed the atonement within a specific context - that God punished Jesus with the punishment due the sins of those who are saved, thereby satisfying the demands of divine judgment. God looked at Jesus as a sinner and poured out his wrath on his Son, who (for that time) was considered unrighteous, evil, filth and condemned for the sins of those who would believe, and Christ suffered the hell that the elect would have suffered (and the non-elect will suffer) while hanging on the Cross as an enemy of God (some say for 3 hours, some for 3 days, some in a literal Hell, some just in a hellish state). Therefore the sins of the elect are cleared from their account and no charge is against them.

 

I've said that over and over again. I agree.

As I've stated, the fact that PSA did not exist as articulated by Calvin for the first 15 centuries of the church does not mean it is incorrect. People have viewed the work of Christ in terms that met their circumstances (the early church going through persecutions looked to a victory over sin and death, Anselm contextualized it in terms of medieval honor, Aquinas to substitutionary penance, Luther to merit in justification, and Calvin superimposed upon it a system of retributive justice).

This does not mean it to be wrong. I absolutely, 100% agree.

God made Him to be sin who knew no sin. All agree Jesus was not made into literal evil or rebellion. So what does this mean? PSA says it means God looked at Jesus as if he were evil, or unrighteous, and in His righteous anger against sin punished him.

If we interpret this through Scripture (as @Martin says, not "it is written" but "it is written again") then "sin" means an offering for sin.

Isaiah 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

1 Peter 1:19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

1 Corinthians 5:7 (b) For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.

John 1:29 (b) "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

God did not make Jesus to be considered as unholy and unrighteous so that He could punish him in our stead. God offered His beloved Son who in obedience lay down His own life as a sin offering. The reason your theory is wrong is not that it is new (although it is, relatively speaking). The reason it is wrong is not even that it is not present in Scripture itself (although it is not present in Scripture itself). The reason it is wrong is because it contradicts Scripture by having God look upon Christ as filth, evil, unrighteousness, sin. It takes one word from one verse out of context of Scripture itself.

 

Yes, that was a definition of retributive justice and restorative justice (not an argument for either in terms of the Bible).

Your argument had confused this and I was simply hoping that a definition from the judicial world would help.

The difference with the ticket is that it focuses on the punishment. Not only that, nothing has truly been restored.

 

Yes, it actually is a fact. Those who look back through time point to "aspects" that comprise PSA as articulated by Calvin. As J.I. Packer points out, the "elements were there". But where Calvin got it wrong (and where PSA gets it wrong) is not in the elements but the context, which was not there until articulated into PSA.

 

The proper viewpoint of Isaiah 53 is exactly the context Isaiah 53 provides. You change the text to read differently to suit your tradition.

And I don't care if Wright also rejects the idea God looked upon Christ as evil. He is correct in his conclusion but that has nothing to do with me.

I am beginning to think you have a man-crush on N.T. Wright because you always seem to run back to him.