Divine Forgiveness

[JonC]

Ok......I have tried for a decade to get a legitimate answer to a question but all I get are responces that based off the assumption the issue in question is unquestionable.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on a specific presupposition. This presupposition is based on a judicial philosophy held by some in the 16th century.

If the presupposition is false then the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is false.

In the past all I get are interpretations of Scripture assuming the presupposition is true. That is not what I am asking.

I am asking a very simple question.

In order to be able to forgive sins why does divine justice require that God first punish the sins to be forgiven even if this is not punishing the transgressor?

 

[37818]

There are two kinds of forgiveness taught in the New Testament. Forgiveness that must be merited, Mark 11:25-26, ". . . if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. . . ."
And the forgiveness in the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:12, ". . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. . . ."

 

[canadyjd]

Ok......I have tried for a decade to get a legitimate answer to a question but all I get are responces that based off the assumption the issue in question is unquestionable.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on a specific presupposition. This presupposition is based on a judicial philosophy held by some in the 16th century.

If the presupposition is false then the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is false.

In the past all I get are interpretations of Scripture assuming the presupposition is true. That is not what I am asking.

I am asking a very simple question.

In order to be able to forgive sins why does divine justice require that God first punish the sins to be forgiven even if this is not punishing the transgressor?

God is Holy and just. It would violate His nature of righteousness to allow sin to go unpunished.

Beginning with the OT sacrifices, God introduced the idea of “substitution” to take the penalty, always pointing to Christ as the ultimate sacrifice.

So, with the death of Jesus, God demonstrates His nature of righteousness in punishing sin, while demonstrating His nature of love b showing mercy toward us.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

God is Holy and just. It would violate His nature of righteousness to allow sin to go unpunished.

We agree that God is holy and just.

I believe that God will punish the wicked. Scripture tells us His wrath abides on the wicked and there will be a "day of wrath" when God's justice is revealed.

But why do you believe God must punish sins (separated from the sinner)?

You say because God is just. But how does God's justice focus on crimes rather than the ones committing the crime?


To help understand my question, here is an illustration:

I commit a sin by getting drunk. To forgive me God must punish "getting drunk". So God, being a just God, punished "getting drunk" on Christ so He can forgive me.

Why must God punish "getting drunk" instead of punishing me for sinning?

How is that just? Why do you believe justice demands crimes, separate from the criminal, be punished?

 

[JonC]

There are two kinds of forgiveness taught in the New Testament. Forgiveness that must be merited, Mark 11:25-26, ". . . if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. . . ."
And the forgiveness in the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:12, ". . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. . . ."

But in both cases what is being forgiven is the person who committed the sin. What would suffer punishment had forgiveness not been granted is the person who committed the sin.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement separated sins from the sinner (something foreign to Hebrew thought). God must punish sins so He puts them on Another and punished them in order to forgive the transgressor.

That was the problem with the 16th century judicial philosophy (that is why Valjean had to go to jail for stealing the bread).

God's wrath abides on wickedness...this is not speaking of actions but those who commit the sins.

Sins are manifestations of sinfulness.

 

[canadyjd]

We agree that God is holy and just.

I believe that God will punish the wicked. Scripture tells us His wrath abides on the wicked and there will be a "day of wrath" when God's justice is revealed.

But why do you believe God must punish sins (separated from the sinner)?

You say because God is just. But how does God's justice focus on crimes rather than the ones committing the crime?


To help understand my question, here is an illustration:

I commit a sin by getting drunk. To forgive me God must punish "getting drunk". So God, being a just God, punished "getting drunk" on Christ so He can forgive me.

Why must God punish "getting drunk" instead of punishing me for sinning?

How is that just? Why do you believe justice demands crimes, separate from the criminal, be punished?

To say “sin” must be punished means someone (Jesus) is being punished as a substitute for the sins committed.

If you reverse it and say “sins are forgiven” would you think God has forgiven the “sin” or that God has forgiven the person committing the sin?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

To say “sin” must be punished means someone (Jesus) is being punished as a substitute for the sins committed.

If you reverse it and say “sins are forgiven” would you think God has forgiven the “sin” or that God has forgiven the person committing the sin?

peace to you

I agree that to say "sins are forgiven" and "God punishes sin" is to refer to the sinner and not the actual sin (a person is forgiven of their sins, a person is punished because of their sins).

That is my point here. And that is why the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is false at the start.

God does not punish or forgive sins (literally, sinful actions) but the sinner.

I am asking those who affirm Penal Substitution Theory to explain the reason they apply a particular philosophy to divine justice. Why do they believe divine justice, or God's holiness, requires that sins (not the transgressor) be punished?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God does not punish or forgive sins (literally, sinful actions) but the sinner.

It's a pity no one told God about this.
'The LORD, the LORD ..........Forgiving iniquity, transgressions and sin' (Exodus 34:6-7).

 

[canadyjd]

I agree that to say "sins are forgiven" and "God punishes sin" is to refer to the sinner and not the actual sin (a person is forgiven of their sins, a person is punished because of their sins).

That is my point here. And that is why the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is false at the start.

God does not punish or forgive sins (literally, sinful actions) but the sinner.

I am asking those who affirm Penal Substitution Theory to explain the reason they apply a particular philosophy to divine justice. Why do they believe divine justice, or God's holiness, requires that sins (not the transgressor) be punished?

I affirm penal substitution because I believe that is what scripture teaches, not a philosophy.

Someone is punished for the sin. That is the substitution part. I think I understand your point that God doesn’t “judge” Jesus as sinful, but He does judge us as sinful and Jesus suffers in our behalf because of our sin.

Beyond that. I really don’t know what you are getting at.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

I affirm penal substitution because I believe that is what scripture teaches, not a philosophy.

Someone is punished for the sin. That is the substitution part. I think I understand your point that God doesn’t “judge” Jesus as sinful, but He does judge us as sinful and Jesus suffers in our behalf because of our sin.

Beyond that. I really don’t know what you are getting at.

peace to you

I understand. I also affirmed Penal Substitution Theory at one time.

The presupposition that you need to justify remains - why must God punish someone (even if not the actual sinner) for sins committed.

Do you see how you have reverted from our agreed on position that punishing and forgiving sins refer to the person and not actually the sinful acts?

 

[BasketFinch]

Ok......I have tried for a decade to get a legitimate answer to a question but all I get are responces that based off the assumption the issue in question is unquestionable.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on a specific presupposition. This presupposition is based on a judicial philosophy held by some in the 16th century.

If the presupposition is false then the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is false.

In the past all I get are interpretations of Scripture assuming the presupposition is true. That is not what I am asking.

I am asking a very simple question.

In order to be able to forgive sins why does divine justice require that God first punish the sins to be forgiven even if this is not punishing the transgressor?

I was lurking on a Christian forum some time ago when this type question was posted.

Someone made an interesting observation that now seems to circle your own.

Recalling as best as I can since its been years now.

If Jesus was the sacrifice, one who took the sins of the world upon himself on the cross, why are the sins of the world still in the world?
If he took them upon himself as that final sacrificial lamb, why do we have to believe it happened for the reward of his sacrifice of taking those sins upon himself, Penal Substitution and Atonement, to benefit us?

If he took the sins as sacrifice the sins should be gone. Believing it shouldn't be a condition for it to be true for the individual.

Sin preexisted Eden. By one man sin entered the world. To enter it had to first exist in Heaven when Lucifer sinned and warred against God.
How does sin exist in God's heavenly kingdom where we're going to be one day as those redeemed from sin?

A very unique perspective I think.

 

[JonC]

It's a pity no one told God about this.
'The LORD, the LORD ..........Forgiving iniquity, transgressions and sin' (Exodus 34:6-7).

Yours is a problem of interpretation. You read sins being forgiving as God somehow forgiving metaphysical entities called "sin" rather than God forgiving people of their sins.

But hey, you deny that God's wrath abides on the wicked and at Judgment the wicked will be cast I to Hell. So I'm not surprised.

 

[canadyjd]

I understand. I also affirmed Penal Substitution Theory at one time.

The presupposition that you need to justify remains - why must God punish someone (even if not the actual sinner) for sins committed.

Do you see how you have reverted from our agreed on position that punishing and forgiving sins refer to the person and not actually the sinful acts?

No, I’ve already stated God acts according to His nature to punish sinful acts and because someone (Jesus) was punished for the sins. That is the substitution.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

No, I’ve already stated God acts according to His nature to punish sinful acts and because someone (Jesus) was punished for the sins. That is the substitution.

peace to you

Then why do you believe a just and holy God would have a character or nature that punished sinful acts separated from the transgressor?

 

[canadyjd]

Then why do you believe a just and holy God would have a character or nature that punished sinful acts separated from the transgressor?

Because the Bible tells me so.

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

When I thought about it this how these are the steps that came to mind.

We are all sinners

Sin has made a separation between man & God

God cannot overlook sin

Sin problem must be dealt with

Only a sinless person could do this

Christ {the sinless lamb} was the sin offering

His death was meant to appease God {restored peace between us}

God the Father does not punish the sin or the Son. The sacrifice of the Son had appeased the Father and this allows Him to view those that trust in the Son as righteous.

Joh 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Rom 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

1Th 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

The sinner that denies the Son will suffer the wrath of God for eternity.

 

[JonC]

Because the Bible tells me so.

peace to you

But the Bible does not tell you so, that's my point.

You interpret the Bible to mean that divine justice isolates sins from those who committed the sin, but this is not true of the Bible itself. No Christian even thought way until the 26th century.

The Bible does not treat sins separate from the sinner. Consequences may, of course, be passed down but the sin is indicative of the sinfulness of the person who committed the act.

If you are blindly accepting that God must punish sinful acts separated from the person who committed the act in order to forgive the sins then I suggest you at least try to read Scripture without that philosophy.

 

[JonC]

When I thought about it this how these are the steps that came to mind.

We are all sinners

Sin has made a separation between man & God

God cannot overlook sin

Sin problem must be dealt with

Only a sinless person could do this

Christ {the sinless lamb} was the sin offering

His death was meant to appease God {restored peace between us}

God the Father does not punish the sin or the Son. The sacrifice of the Son had appeased the Father and this allows Him to view those that trust in the Son as righteous.

Joh 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Rom 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

1Th 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

The sinner that denies the Son will suffer the wrath of God for eternity.

I would use the word "reconcile" rather than appease (reconciled man and God....I think we mean the same thing) but I agree with your post.

 

[canadyjd]

But the Bible does not tell you so, that's my point.

You interpret the Bible to mean that divine justice isolates sins from those who committed the sin, but this is not true of the Bible itself. No Christian even thought way until the 26th century.

The Bible does not treat sins separate from the sinner. Consequences may, of course, be passed down but the sin is indicative of the sinfulness of the person who committed the act.

If you are blindly accepting that God must punish sinful acts separated from the person who committed the act in order to forgive the sins then I suggest you at least try to read Scripture without that philosophy.

Well, as I stated, I don’t follow a philosophy, I follow scripture. We obviously disagree on what scripture teaches.

Since you used to hold to PSA, why don’t you explain which passages of scripture you based that belief on and then what changed your mind.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Well, as I stated, I don’t follow a philosophy, I follow scripture. We obviously disagree on what scripture teaches.

Since you used to hold to PSA, why don’t you explain which passages of scripture you based that belief on and then what changed your mind.

peace to you

I am sorry for how I put that. I did not mean you follow philosophy, just that a particular philosophy is involved in all of our understanding and needs to be defended.

I preached a sermon on the cross. It was well reviewed and I was satisfied with the sermon. I awoke the next morning with a conviction that I had preached an understanding but strayed from God's Word.

I bought a couple of dry erase boards and took a few months going through listing every passage I could find dealing with Penal Substitution Theory. Then I erased all passages that did not state (in the text) aspects that separated Penal Substitution Theory from other views. I was left without any passages.

I could not defend its presuppositions.