Featured 5 Biblical Corrections to Penal Substitution

Arthur. Thank you for that. First. The idea that Christs death was unjust should be shared by everyone. Just reading the scriptural account shows not only the injustice of the trial but that he was actually found innocent anyway.

What is new to me is that I take it that you are saying that this is the primary purpose of the atonement? And are these the best examples of proper atonement theology? The older ones do show a more vivid consciousness of the cosmic battle going on between God and Satan. I sometimes think we neglect that in modern times.


Are you saying Lutherans reject penal substitution? I had assumed that some modern Lutheran synods do but are you saying Luther rejected penal substitution? And, while I'm a big fan of C. S. Lewis I don't think I would rely on him for theology except I do find his writing very good in a devotional way.

You are listed as a Baptist. Are there Baptist churches moving in this direction? Why is this such a hard question? Are there John of Damascus or Churches of Chrysostom in operation or should there be?

 

Here is what I said: "2) "Jesus death was unjust and this was corrected by His resurrection". I disagree. Jesus was treated unjustly, but His sacrifice, the just for the unjust, was according to God's just plan as God is never unjust."

I did not say God cannot ordain events in which an injustice takes place. Please address what I did say, as I see no need to endless address false claims and misrepresentations concerning biblical views.

I do affirm God's sovereignty meaning God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.

Now back to #2 and our difference:

Here is what you said, "But in the Bible, Jesus suffers death on the cross unjustly as a perfectly innocent party. Justice is satisfied in the resurrection as the reversal of Jesus’ unjust death on the cross, and the fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises."

So I maintain God's plan to put to death the just for the unjust was not unjust. Note I am referring to God's predetermined plan, and not the actions of the humans treating Jesus unjustly. One place where scripture indicates God is not unjust is Romans 9:13.

 

God is never unjust and Christ's sacrifice was the just for the unjust. His suffering and death is the sacrifice, as without the shedding of blood (death) there is no forgiveness of sin.

 

First, thank you for addressing my view accurately and supporting your view, at least in your interpretation, from scripture.

This says Christ is our example of how to act when treated unjustly. We agree Christ was treated by humans unjustly. It does not say, at least as I understand the text, that Christ's sacrifice was according to God's unjust plan. OTOH it does say God judges righteously (verse 23) which reinforces my view from the text you cited.

 

Again, Christ was put to death unjustly by the humans involved, but God's plan was not unjust, sacrificing the just for the unjust.

 

Would this be(?);

(1) The Governmental View.

"This view holds that the purpose of the atonement was to prevent God's pardoning of sinners from encouraging sin.

"The salvation of sinners requires no bearing of the penalty of their sins.

"Their turning from sin to God is enough to justify God in saving them.

"But the pardoning of the guilty, without some exhibition of God's hatred against sin and of His regard for His law, would license sin and rob the law of any authority over the consciences of men."

Or is this(?);

(2) The Example View. This view holds in common with the governmental view that Christ's death was not substitutionary. It holds that God did not need to be propitiated in behalf of the sinner; that the only hindrance to the salvation of sinners lies in the sinner's continued practice of sin. Reformation, therefore, is the adequate remedy, and this can be effected by man's own will. To encourage us in this Jesus died as a noble martyr, exemplifying an unselfish devotion that chose death rather than the compromise of His duty to God and man. We are saved, not by trusting Him as our sin-bearer, but by trusting in God according to His example and thus devoting ourselves to righteousness.

or(?);

(3) The Moral-Influence View. This view holds in common with both the former that sin brings no guilt that must be removed. It is not the guilt, but the practice of sin that hinders salvation. Christ's death was only an exhibition of love to soften man's heart and lead him to repentance. "Christ's sufferings were necessary, not in order to remove an obstacle to the pardon of sinners which exists in the mind of God, but in order to convince sinners that there exists no such obstacle" (Strong).

or(?);

(4) "The Gradually-Extirpated-Depravity View. This view is defined by Strong as follows: "Christ took human nature as it was in Adam, not before the fall but after the fall,-human nature, therefore, with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil;

"that notwithstanding the possession of this tainted and depraved nature, Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, or of His divine nature, not only kept His human nature from manifesting itself in actual or personal sin, but gradually purified it, through struggle and suffering, until in His death He completely extirpated its original depravity and reunited it with God.

"This subjective purification of human nature in the person of Jesus constitutes His atonement, and men are saved not by any objective propitiation, but only by becoming through faith partakers of Christ's new humanity."

or(?);

"There are two other views of the atonement that theologians commonly discuss under false or inadequate theories of the atonement that we shall not give special treatment here.

"We refer to the (5) accident view (?) and (6) the commercial view (?). The former holds that the death of Christ was an unforeseen accident and not anticipated by Christ.

"This view is so manifestly absurd that it does not deserve here the space that it would take to refute it. We do not give special treatment to the commercial view of the atonement here because it embodies so much truth..."

 

But.....It does. That's what it means that He became a curse that we might become the righteousness of God, and not subject to the penalty brought upon our sins in His own body on the tree.

Agreed. And someday this may become true of your interaction here.

 

As usual, your rabbis have missed the point, which is why they reject Christ. I've noticed a Judaistic list in your posts. Your earlier assertion that God's desire is to bless the nations through Israel caught my eye. No, the Seed of Abraham is Christ. Not Israel. But that's another discussion.

LOL. Sez who? That's baloney. Besides, the offerer kills the sin offering only if he is able to bring one from his herds or flocks. The poorer among them brought fowls, and in that case the priest is commanded to kill the offering, and to drain the blood at the base of the altar. Where is the commandment to sprinkle the offerer?

Alas for the poor folks!

Not always.
Leviticus 1:14-15, 5:7-8

The sacrifices were divided into two main groups, those that were burned on the brazen altar, and those that were not.

Those that were burned on the altar, or more accurately, those that rose as a sweet savor are the Burnt, Meat (or Meal), and Peace Offerings, and those that weren't were the Sin and Trespass offerings.

The first group are not offered for sin. This is the devout Isrealite, not a penitent, bringing an offering in worship to Jehovah. Many are confused by the word "atonement" in the description of the Burnt Offering. But it's not atonement for sin. It's the satisfaction of righteousness, not wrath. And so it is wholly burnt on the altar, and rises as a sweet savor, pleasing to God.

And notice the reason for the laying on of the worshipper's hands. That signifies that the worshipper is identifying with the offering, and it is "accepted for him." In other words, it is accepted in his place. The offering is seen as the offerer. It is his substitute.

Christ is not only our substitute in judgment, but in service. It is His righteousness that is imputed to us.

The second group is the group offered for sin. These are not burned on the altar, except for a memorial portion. Again, the offerer places his hands on the head of the offering, signifying, as in the Burnt Offering, it's "acceptance for him." And the offering is killed, then carried outside the camp and burned on the ground, not on the altar of God, and the sins of the offerer are judged.

According to the cited law, of whom is the one hanging on the tree accursed?

 

No, that's what it means.

Tell me what it means that He "bore our sins in His own body on the tree," without simply repeating the text.

 

That is not the argument at hand. 87% on here agree with that statement.

the fact of Christs Resurrection rests in His sinlessness

 

The resurrection of Jesus did not "reverse" or create a just sacrifice. The resurrection provides evidence of the truth of the gospel promise.

 

The issue is the resurrection of Jesus did not "reverse" or create a just sacrifice.