The Great Irony

I think some would, but then it's Satisfaction Theory. Aquinas presented the idea that Christ was punished (satisfactory punishment that was counted as punishment for sinners) but that simple punishment was immoral.

 

I think so. But he thought an innocent man could justly be punished for a guilty man if both were willing and a relationship existed. The key, however, was that this couldn't be a punishment as if the innocent were guilty.

If I steal a ring and am sentenced to 5 years in jail, you couldn't bear that same punishment for my crime because that would be unjust. But the judge can let you pay monetary restitution on my behalf for my crime to satisfy the penalty.

(I see this as a penance type thing....e.g., Catholics crawling up stairs to help a loved one out of Purgatory).

 

Do you have a verse to support this?

I realize Christ is sinless and we are not. But it seems to me Scripture speaks as if Christ took on our nature and shared our infirmity.

Thanks.

 

He was born of a virgin. But do you have s passage stating He did not share in our "sickness"?

It seems to me the Bible teaches that if Christ did not share our nature (come in the likeness of sinful flesh) that He wouldn't have redeemed us.

 

His theory of justice was that those conditions being met it was just not to have the guy jailed (the judge sets both types of punishment). The idea you are speaking of was a reformation of Aquinas' position (and I think better suited for today's type).

Personally, I do look at it differently than both you and brother Aquinas.

Suppose you stomp on my foot. I can forgive you or retaliate. It is a personal affront to me. If I forgive you this is a mercy and neither of us suffers loss. If I stomp on your foot you've got what you deserve. I will not forgive you except you change from a foot stomper to a foot washer. I believe God has this power to forgive.

The biggest difference, I think, with your illustration is that you present the offence as being against the law (which demands punishment even if restitution had been paid for the theft). I view the offence as personal and against a person.

In Atonement, your theme seems to view sin as against the Law (therefore divine justice must he satisfied for God to forgive) and Christ satisfied the legal "sin debt" the Law held against us.

I view sin as against God (therefore God is just to punish or forgive, but is faithful to forgive those who turn to Him) and redemption through Christ a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law (repentance being a rebirth through faith in Christ).

Please correct me if I misspoke (mistyped) about your view.

 

Hey MM.

To clarify, that was not a caricature. The first two paragraphs are how I view the Theory of Penal Substitution. The second two are my conclusions based of the first two.

Reading your explanation I agree with every verse you have provided. I especially like that you have included Hebrews 7:22 (I think I've posted all of this before except for that reference).
Absolutely Christ became our Surety. This is not only stated in Scripture but it is implied in the Incarnation. Christ bore our sins. And Christ is the "last Adam", pointing not only to the Resurrection but to ours in Him.

I would appreciate your feedback specifically on my presentation of the Theory (I borrowed from RC Sproul on the Ligonier Ministries website):

The great problem (to be solved) of Penal Substitution Theory is how God can deal with human sin and yet still justify men without making God unjust. Man has disobeyed God, treating God as if He were man’s equal….or worse….by elevating man’s will over God’s. Man has treated God as unholy and this is an eternal offense because God is an eternally holy and just God.

The great solution of Penal Substitution is that God Himself became man in order to take upon Himself the punishment due mankind. This way God fulfills the requirements of divine justice by punishing Christ (essentially by punishing Himself….as Y1 says – God punching Himself) for man’s disobedience. Having expended his wrath God is free to forgive man (men to whom no more wrath is due).

And thank you in advance for your insight.

John

 

Ezekiel 18:19-21 NKJV
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. [20] The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. [21] “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.



Isaiah 53:10 NKJV
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You 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.

The question is - if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps God's statutes and does what is lawful and right, will he surely live or die? What is the key - repentance or punishment?

 

It's not supposed to come to a conclusion.

Most Christian's hold a theory other than Penal Substitution Theory. BUT among those there are other theories (the majority hold a Christus Victor position). And among all of these diverse views are Christian scholars truly devoted to Scripture.

All we can do is discuss these things - see what we have in common, what we have different, and constantly evaluate our own views against Scripture.

And, of course, have fun doing it.

 

I would, if you don't mind, like to look at the passage to which you pointed.

Ezekiel 18:20-21 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

This is one verse I would use as a proof text that if a sinner repeats and keeps God's statutes then that person will live. Scripture tells us this can only be done through faith in Christ (I believe faith and repentance always go together).

My question is whether or not the verse is accurate as written. Is Life dependent on repentance and belief or is it dependent on punishment? How do you address verse 21?

 

I don't understand what you mean (it's not you - If you haven't noticed, I'm not the sharpest fool in the shed ).

Do you mind explaining the last part?