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

Can you please explain what you meant by: "God's justice requires we "pay" by being punished for the injustice we caused." It sure sounds to me like you are saying punishment pays for sin.

 

Those not saved in Christ are condemned already. They will face "eternal punishment" in Hades and Gehenna. Their punishment will "satisfy" God's requirement for "perfect justice" no more and no less. To refer to this as vengeance or retribution as payback for an effrontery to God is wrong.

If any individual is not "in Christ" (placed spiritually into the Kingdom of His Son} the wrath of God abides on that individual. John 3:36 We store up "wrath" by sinning. And this "sin burden" (what God holds against the unforgiven) is referred to as the "decrees against us."

God is righteous, and His righteousness requires that justice is balanced. and the result is punishment in Hades and Gehenna to satisfy God's perfect justice. The problem with thinking this somehow results in our justification is just a step or two from universalism, when after due punishment the lost "earn" their way to heaven. Twaddle

 

I'm having trouble following you. Are you defending the idea that humanity owes God a debt of punishment or not?

Biblical justice is not balance. Buddhist justice is balance. Biblical justice has two priorities: restitution for the innocent (Num 5:6), and retribution for the guilty (Lev 24:17-22, the “lex talionis”). Restitution is the reparation of damages suffered by offended parties, often with compensation greater than the damages done. Retribution is the return of the sinner’s own sin upon the sinner’s own head. As Paul summarizes in 2 Thess 1:6, “it is just (justice) for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you (retribution) and to give relief to you who are afflicted (restitution).”

 

According to your understanding, after God "repays" sinners with "affliction" are the sinners justified?
What is your view of the meaning of "atonement?"
If God repays sinners with "affliction" in Hades and Gehenna is that not consistent with the wages of sin being death?

 

Why would it do that? The reverse is true. 'He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities.' And how was this done? 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.' First our sins were laid upon Him; then the penalty of them was paid by Him, along with the curse that attended them (Galatians 3:13).

No. The resurrection is the sign that Christ's sacrifice was acceptable to God. The union of the believer with Christ (a glorious truth) does not alter the fact that He was manifested to take away our sins

Whenever anyone uses the word 'ontological' I tend to reach, metaphorically, for my shotgun. Why do you suppose that 2 Cor 5:21 does not mean exactly what it says? Look at the previous verse. It is precisely because Christ became sin that the way to reconciliation with God is possible. 'God set Him forth as a propitiation........that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

And this, with respect, is waffle. 2 Cor 5:21 is explained by Isaiah 53:6. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.' And Christ did not die to become the 'ultimate expression of human sin,' whatever that is supposed to mean. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' He died bearing our sins and the curse attached to them (hence the use of xulon instead of stauron). And all sin without exception is sin against God (Genesis 39:9; Psalms 51:4). But if I were the only person who had ever sinned, it would still be necessary for Christ to suffer and die to save me.

 

You asked: "According to your understanding, after God "repays" sinners with "affliction" are the sinners justified?" No.

You asked: "What is your view of the meaning of "atonement?"" Here is a nice meaty answer for you, pertaining to our discussion of restitution (or restoration):

Due to God’s gracious covenant, justice requires restoration for damage suffered by innocent parties. humans have totally and severely damaged themselves by their own sin (God is not damaged by our sin. In the case of sin against God, sin is an offense that damages the offender). God desires to enact restoration for this destruction, but humans are not innocent, they are guilty. There is none righteous, not one. So the question is: How can a just God, a covenant God, enact restoration for guilty humanity’s self-destruction? Answer: God becomes a human in the person of Jesus Christ, lives completely innocently (or righteously) and therefore merits the covenantal blessings by which humanity’s destruction will be restored. Jesus then voluntarily endures all of humanity’s sinful destruction against himself by suffering crucifixion at the hands of all humans on the cross. Jesus therefore merits restoration for all of humanity’s sinful destruction, for he alone has suffered sin’s destruction as an innocent party. This restoration manifests in His resurrection, when “God raised our Great Shepherd up from the dead through the blood of the eternal covenant (Heb 13:20).” So the correct response to the question “Why did Jesus die?” is: in order for all suffering and death to be repaired by God in accordance with his justice, all suffering and death had to be endured by a perfectly innocent and righteous person (for only innocent persons have the right of restoration for wrongs suffered) and only Jesus qualifies as that perfectly righteous person.

Divine justice is therefore satisfied in the resurrection as the reversal and reparation of all the sin that Jesus unjustly suffered on the cross. Jesus dies under the unjust judgment of humans, and is raised by the just judgment of God. Jesus’ reward, or inheritance, of the covenantal blessings applies to the rest of humanity if by the power of the Holy Spirit we participate in His death (through remorse) and participate in His resurrection (through repentance). So the gospel is not that “God substituted Himself to satisfy His own wrath,” which is not Biblical terminology. The gospel is exactly what Paul says it is: “the good news that God has fulfilled His promises to our children in that He raised Jesus up from the dead (Acts 13:30).” The gospel is that God’s covenantal promises to restore the world from Adam’s curse (the subject of the Old Testament) are fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection (the subject of the New Testament).

You asked: "If God repays sinners with "affliction" in Hades and Gehenna is that not consistent with the wages of sin being death?" It is consistent. What is inconsistent is the idea of humanity having a "debt of death," when the Bible says the exact opposite, that the "wages of sin is death." Wages are the exact opposite of debts. But this causes a problem for Penal Substitution which is orchestrated around Jesus paying humanity's "debt of punishment" or "debt of death" when in fact no such thing exists.

 

We must be careful in saying that our Lord's death was unjust lest we make God the author of sin. Certainly it was the sinful actions of men that brought Him to the cross, but they were fulfilling the purpose and good pleasure of God (Isaiah 53:10; Acts of the Apostles 4:28; cf. Genesis 40:20) and these were not sinful but righteous, for in Christ, 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and mercy have kissed' (Psalms 85:5).

To be sure, it was necessary that the Redeemer should be sinless if He were to atone for our sins, and certainly His death was sinful on the part of those who connived in it. If God had taken a man at random and made him scapegoat from the rest of humanity, that too would have been sinful even if (theoretically) that man had been without sin, but it was God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ who made atonement for us (Acts of the Apostles 20:28) and this was an amazing act of mercy and righteousness.

 

So you are saying that injustice in the universe is incompatible with God's sovereignty. Was Abel's death unjust? Was Stephen's death unjust? Was the rape of Dinah unjust? God sovereignly ordained that all these events would happen.

Read Psalm 44, which has a strong statement of unjust suffering, and yet God's sovereignty in the midst of it all. God can sovereignly ordain that unjust actions take place within His universe, without Himself being unjust. The slavery of Israel by the Egyptians was unjust, yet God ordained that would take place.

 

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that there is a man-ward perspective in which the death of Christ was unspeakably wicked, and a God-ward perspective in which God Himself, in the Person of the Lord Jesus did an act of unspeakable mercy and justice in which sin was punished and God's righteous law upheld and magnified (Isaiah 42:21; Romans 3:31).

 

I would also encourage you to read these quotations from Augustine, John Chrysostom, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Lewis, all of which cite the injustice of Jesus' death as central to the atonement mechanism. But this is in contradiction to penal substitution, which claims that Jesus' death was just/deserved.

Augustine states that the cross is where the devil lost his right of death over humanity because he unjustly killed the Son of God in whom there was no sin:

It is not then difficult to see that the devil was conquered, when he who was slain by Him rose again. It is something more, and more profound of comprehension, to see that the devil was conquered when he thought himself to have conquered, that is, when Christ was slain. For then that blood, since it was His who had no sin at all, was poured out for the remission of our sins; that, because the devil deservedly held those whom, as guilty of sin, he bound by the condition of death, he might deservedly loose them through Him, whom, as guilty of no sin, the punishment of death undeservedly affected. The strong man was conquered by this righteousness, and bound with this chain, that his vessels might be spoiled, which with himself and his angels had been vessels of wrath while with him, and might be turned into vessels of mercy.[1]

John Chrysostom agrees,

“It is as if Christ said, ‘Now shall a trial be held, and a judgment be pronounced. How and in what manner? He (the devil) smote the first man (Adam), because he found him guilty of sin; for it was through sin that death entered in. But he did not find any sin in Me; wherefore then did he fall on Me and give Me up to the power of death? . . . How is the world now judged in Me?’ It is as if it were said to the devil at a seat of judgment: ‘Thou didst smite them all, because thou didst find them guilty of sin; wherefore then didst thou smite Christ? Is it not evident that thou didst this wrongfully? Therefore the whole world shall become righteous through Him.’”[2]

Anselm of Canterbury says this aspect is part of the popular view of atonement in his day. It is justice that sets Jesus free from death, not justice that kills Jesus:

“That God, in order to set mankind free, was obliged to act against the devil by justice rather than mighty power. We reason that thus the devil, having killed Him in whom there was no guilt deserving death and who was God, would justly lose the power which he used to have over sinners.”[3]

Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, affirms this as well:

“Christ's Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in Christ's Passion [the devil] exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by conspiring to bring about Christ's death, Who, being sinless, did not deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): "The devil was vanquished by Christ's justice: because, while discovering in Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him. And it is certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no debtor."

And even Martin Luther applies the loss of rights to the Law rather than the devil:

“Thou hearest that Christ was caught in the bondage in which we all were held, was set under the Law, was a man full of all grace, righteousness, etc., full of life, yea, He was even the Life itself; now comes the Law and casts itself at Him and would deal with Him as with all other men. Christ sees this, lets the tyrant perform his will upon Him, lets the reproach of all guilt fall against Himself as one accursed, yea, bears the name that He Himself is the curse, and goes to suffer for this cause, dies, and is buried. Now, thinks the Law, He is overpowered; but it knew not that it had so grievously mistaken itself, and that it had condemned and throttled the Son of God; and since it has now judged and condemned Him, who was guiltless and over whom it had no authority, it must in its turn be taken, and see itself made captive and crucified, and lose all its power, and lie under the feet of Him whom it had condemned.”[4][5]

When our Lord was roaming around Narnia in the form of a giant, magical, not-safe-yet-good lion, he said,

“when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” (it is interesting to think that if we read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe through the lens of Penal Substitution, the White Witch would represent God the Father! I highly doubt this was Lewis’ intention in the allegory)

[1] Augustine. De Trinity. Book 13, Chapter 15.

[2] Chrysostom, John. Homily LXVII. Database online. Philip Schaff: NPNF1-14. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

[3] Anselm, Why God Became Man. Book 1, Chapter 7. Anselm does not fully agree with this idea, but it is important to not that this was a popular view among Christians in the 11th century.

[4] Luther, Martin. Works, XXIII., p.709

[5] I am indebted to Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor, for the references to Chrysostom and Luther.