Featured Just how does the wrath of god be appeased if no penal Substitution?

I already addressed this argument in the last post. You may need to reread it again. I think you are failing to see that humanity, since the fall, has been in a state of exile from God. We have been exiled from paradise and from His presence (Genesis 3). We have been children of wrath (Ephesians 2). The wrath of God has been revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness (Romans 1). So when Jesus drinks the cup of our exile, it is not in place of humanity, but it is to join humanity in exile in order to rescue us out of it. It is not an act of separation from God, but an act of God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

Remember Ezekiel's vision of God's presence that he has in Babylon. The whole point of that vision is that God has accompanied His people into exile into Babylon. Just as God went with Israel into Babylon, so also God goes with humanity into our exile on the cross.

You keep framing the narrative as if humanity is yet to experience any wrath from God due to sin, and if a person becomes a Christian, then they will never have to experience that wrath because Jesus suffers it in their place. That is not the Biblical narrative. The Biblical narrative is that humanity is dead in our sin, and God raises us up to new life. Our hope is not in avoiding wrath, but in resurrection from wrath.

 

I have read lots of NT Wright, as well as many others (Augustine is probably my favorite) and I agree with Wright on many things, but I disagree with him on some points as well.

 

Are you asking what I have read of NT Wright, or what I disagree with him on?

 

I'm not sure I could answer that question with the brevity appropriate for a forum like this, but in a nutshell I think that some of his statements on atonement and justification are confusing. Overall he is massively helpful though, and massively helpful on those particular topics.

 

Why these posters systematically misrepresent the views of others is easy to figure. They are waving the white flag of surrender. Here we get the claim access means basis. Twaddle

This is all they have, post nonsense to hide the truth.

 

Less that I disagree and more that I would describe things differently. My main area of study is the doctrine of the atonement, and justification is downstream from that. I think throughout church history there have been misunderstandings of the atonement that have cause problems with our thinking in justification, and NT Wright has picked up on some of those problems.

For example, one major misunderstanding that I think you mentioned was the idea of a debt of punishment that humans owe God. Such a debt of punishment does not exist in Scripture (The Bible says the exact opposite, that the wages of sin is death), yet this is a huge part of both Catholic and Protestant understandings of the atonement.

 

Petty sure I disagree with the idea our "sin burden" (what God holds against us) is not portrayed as a "debt." The idea is that God requires "justice" and if we are unjust (sinful thought or act) we incur the wrath of God, meaning God's justice requires we "pay" by being punished for the injustice we caused. But since all our righteous acts (while in a state of being made sinners) are as filthy rags to God, we cannot pay our debt. Thus Christ laid down His life as a "ransom" for all. Anyone placed spiritually into Christ has their "sin burden" removed by the "circumcision of Christ" and the "washing of regeneration."

So what was "bought" by Christ's suffering and death was the right to justify, forgive and save anyone God places in Christ, those to be placed in Christ, and those never to be placed in Christ were "bought" with the blood of Christ.

Colossians 2:14
having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Tell me where I have missed the mark.

 

There is no question that the Lord Jesus emerged at victor over Satan when He rose from the dead. Christus Victor is not wrong - who believes in Christus Loser? - but it is incomplete.

Satan is the accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10). In Zechariah 3:1-5, we see Joshua the High Priest clad in filthy garments and Satan ready to accuse him. Now Joshua's position entitled him to wear the rather splendid garments described in Exodus 28, so the 'filthy garments must describe his moral state before God (Isaiah 64:6). There is nothing in Ezra, Haggai or Zechariah which suggests that he was a particularly egregious sinner, so his situation must be the same as the rest of us. '...All by nature children of wrath.' 'There is none righteous, no not one.' s

Satan's accusation of Joshua, that he is a sinner with whom God can have nothing to do, can only be dismissed by his sins being taken away, typified by him being 'clothed with rich robes' (v.4). This is the victory of the Lord Jesus Christ. He has 'removed' our iniquity from us by becoming sin for us - that is, having them laid upon Him - bearing the curse of them, and paying the penalty for them in full on the cross.

 

You are confusing payment with punishment, that is, restitution with retribution. Retribution does not accomplish restitution. For example, Bill murders someone and goes to prison. How does his going to prison restore the life that he took? Yes, the principle of retribution is fulfilled, but not the principle of restitution. Or let's say Steve steals $10,000 from you and spends it all. Steve is then caught and goes to prison. How does his going to prison restore your $10,000? You are still out the money.

Or consider this: Let's say Mike gouges out your eye. A genie appears to you and says "I will give you (a) retribution without restitution, that Mike loses an eye but you keep seeing in 2-D the rest of your life, or (b) restitution without retribution, that your eye will be restored to you even better than it was before, but Mike will go unpunished. Everyone of course would choose (b). Restitution is the main priority of justice, and retribution does not accomplish it.

Yes, sins are debts, but not debts of punishment. They are debts of obedience. Jesus' obedience to the will of the Father on the cross is what cancels out our debts of obedience.

 

Yes, Christ's status of righteousness is given to us when the Holy Spirit applies the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to us. But our sins are not taken away by being imputed to Christ, that would make his sacrifice ineffectual. Our sins are taken away when we die and rise with Christ. Romans 6 makes this clear: he who has died with Christ is free from sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 does not refer to Jesus becoming sin in any ontological or legal sense. The point is that just as the church becomes the ultimate expression of God's covenant faithfulness (we become the righteousness of God) so also Jesus, by his crucifixion, became the ultimate expression of human sin. All sin against God and all sin against man contributed to the death of the God-man, Jesus Christ.

 

I do not think I am confused. I did not say nor suggest retribution is the same as restitution.
And the "sin debts" are incurred via human disobedience, and are cancelled when God places us into Christ where we undergo the washing of regeneration and the circumcision of Christ.

As far as debts of punishment, the unforgiven suffer "eternal punishment" for their sins. The concept of "storing up wrath" suggests the more a person sins the more punishment they will incur in Hades and Gehenna.

 

"I did not say nor suggest retribution is the same as restitution. "

You said: "God's justice requires we "pay" by being punished for the injustice we caused. But since all our righteous acts (while in a state of being made sinners) are as filthy rags to God, we cannot pay our debt."

You say that we pay by being punished. That is to equate retribution with restitution. But then in the next sentence you say that we cannot pay our debt because our righteous acts are filthy rags, so that makes me wonder what you think our sin-debt is; is it a debt of punishment or a debt of righteousness? I believe it is the latter, and that is what Jesus pays on our behalf. Jesus does not pay a debt of punishment, because there is no such thing.

When God stores up wrath for sinners, that is something He "pays" to sinners (the wages of sin is death), not something sinners pay to Him. Wages are the exact opposite of debts. I agree people go to hell, but fail to see how that pays for anything that God lost due to human sin.

 

People who redefine the message of others are not engaging in discussion. You defined our punishment as retribution, but I did not. That suggests after our due punishment we would be justified. Twaddle

Did our sin cause God's loss? No one said that.