The Penal Substitutionary Satisfaction by Jesus Christ in "The Council of Peace" from Eternity Past.

[Aaron]

My definition? No, I offered Athanasius' definition (medical substitution) and Aquinas' definition (satisfaction as substitution). Your argument is with those men. I said I prefer "representation", although it is more than representation because it includes substitution in terms of One under the curse for the benefit of humanity.

I'm sure you are aware that even in today's legal arena it is used this way (one representing many in proxy is called "representative substitution").

Oh wait... Never mind. I'm sure you are not aware because you wear blinders.

Substitution is not representation. It's a replacement. So, stop saying you believe Christ is our substitute, when you don't really mean that.

 

[Aaron]

You haven't really said anything.

I've spoken volumes.

Why is the wrath appeased?

Because justice is satisfied.

In my example...

Your example is weak.

Here's a better example...your teenage daughter is forcibly sodomized then beaten to death. What will satisfy, that is, quench, your wrath?

 

[Arthur King]

You're right in two ways. First, this is tantamount to an admission that the Mercy Seat needs no purification. That is correct. God's glory was there between the cherubim. It was pure.

Second, you halt at the definition, because only by skewing the words can you make your case.

The Mercy Seat, aka, the seat of propitiation, is sprinkled with the blood of the sin sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.

It was not for purification, but for satisfaction. The satisfaction of justice. Penalty.

You are just re-asserting your conclusion without presenting any new evidence.

Blood has a purifying function as a spiritual detergent. It is also the currency that God accepts as payment for sin (leviticus 17). The blood MUST be from an animal without blemish. God is insistent on this, and castigates Israel in the book of Malachi for bringing blemished offerings to the altar. If sin is imputed to the offering, it is no longer effective to make a sacrifice.

Only the shed blood of an innocent will do, like the blood of Abel but truly pure. It is this shed blood that, paid to God, provides the necessary resources to fix what is broken.

 

[Aaron]

You are just re-asserting your conclusion without presenting any new evidence.

LOL. Just describing the picture God painted.

 

[Arthur King]

I am raised up and seated in heavenly places in Him. Ephesians 2:6

As I told you before, that has yet to be seen. Some saints won't. And for saints, it's not death, but sleep.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, - 1 Corinthians 15:51

He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. - Matthew 9:24

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. - John 11:26 KJV
​

Believest thou this? You obviously do not.

No, these are not punishments of sin, but the dust and ashes thereof.

Death is the wages of sin. And whosoever liveth and believeth in Christ shall never die. Believest thou this? Again, you obviously do not.

Since it's not the death of the body, which is merely sleep in the case of the saints, from which we're spared, what death is it?

Haha you cut out the part of the verse where he says "but we will all be changed." Changed by what? The death and resurrection of Jesus. You think you can be saved without being born again through the resurrection of Jesus?

"Believest thou this?"

What are you, 400 years old? Talk like a normal person you big goof!

"No, these are not punishments of sin, but the dust and ashes thereof."

No idea what this means. Yes, they are punishments for sin. See Genesis 3.

1 Peter begins with "to those who reside as exiles/aliens." We are not seeing the beatific vision yet, friend. And you are still sinning in your sinful flesh. Not until you physically die will your sinful flesh be done away with.

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in Christ shall never die."

Yes, because they will be raised from death. Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it cannot bear fruit. Same book. He who loves his life will lose it. Take up your cross and follow me, Jesus says.

If you need me to list 40 new testament verses about our participation in Christ's death, I will.

 

[JonC]

Substitution is not representation. It's a replacement. So, stop saying you believe Christ is our substitute, when you don't really mean that.

There is a legal use of "representative substitute".
There is Athanasius' use of medical substitution.
There is Aquinas' use of satisfactory substitution.
There is Torrance's use of total substitution.
There is the Orthodox Church's use of therapeutic substitution.
There is the Eastern view of ontological substitution.

The reason those other views correctly use "substitution" is that in them God, in the Person of Christ, assumed the place of man.

The difference is that this substitution is not forensic and replacement but ontological....as a union.

It is substitution rather than representation because of this solidarity with man (assuming the place of mankind, not instead of but for and with).

 

[Aaron]

If you need me to list 40 new testament verses about our participation in Christ's death, I will.

Ahh. Dying in Christ, means I've already died the sinner's death...in HIM. Which means I've been spared it.

So, as Christ said, I shall never die.

Oh... but wait...YOU say I will. What does that mean except that you don't understand at all what Christ said, and what death it was that He died in our stead?

 

[Arthur King]

Ahh. Dying in Christ, means I've already died the sinner's death...in HIM. Which means I've been spared it.

So, as Christ said, I shall never die.

Oh... but wait...YOU say I will. What does that mean except that you don't understand at all what Christ said, and what death it was that He died in our stead?

Paul says that we were dead (Eph 2), that we have died (Romans 6, Galatians 2), and that we will die (Philippians 3).

You are trying to force too rigid a time frame on how the New Testament talks about death, taking the authors out of context.

Yes, you will definitely physically die. This is a punishment for sin, instituted in Genesis 3. It is also for your salvation, for if you never physically died, you would live forever in your sinful flesh, which would be hell.

 

[Alan Gross]

I agree the idea of forgiveness accomplished being Christ paying the penalty for our sins instead of us is not actually in the Bible but rather an idea men derived from it. They were wrong.

Socinians deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement, because they do not choose to embrace the doctrine of the necessity of Christ’s satisfaction for sin.

Is Socinianism what this is?

sins cannot be punished because they are not things upon which one can chastise.

I could have sworn that the chastisement of our peace was upon Jesus.

The Mercy Seat, aka, the seat of propitiation, is sprinkled with the blood of the sin sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.

It was not for purification, but for satisfaction. The satisfaction of justice. Penalty.

"Punitive, or vindictive justice, belongs to God..."

"That punitive, or vindictive justice, is essential to God, or that he not only will not let sin go unpunished, but that he cannot but punish sin, is manifest,"

"...from sin being punished in Christ, the Surety of his people, it may be strongly concluded, that punitive justice is essential to God; or otherwise, where is the goodness of God to his own Son, that he should not spare him, but awake the sword of justice against him, and inflict the whole of punishment on him, due to the sins of those for whom he suffered, if he could not have punished sin, or this was not necessary?

"and, indeed, where is his wisdom in being at such an expense as the blood and life of his Son, if sin could have been let go unpunished, and the salvation of his people obtained without it?

"and where is the love of God to men, in giving Christ for them, for their remission and salvation, so much magnified, when all this might have been without it?

"but without shedding of blood, as there is no remission, so none could be, consistent with the justice of God;

"no pardon nor salvation, without satisfaction to that: could it have been in another way, the prayer of Christ would have brought it out, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass me” (Matthew 26:39)."

 

[JonC]

Socinians deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement, because they do not choose to embrace the doctrine of the necessity of Christ’s satisfaction for sin.

Is Socinianism what this is?



I could have sworn that the chastisement of our peace was upon Jesus.



"Punitive, or vindictive justice, belongs to God..."

"That punitive, or vindictive justice, is essential to God, or that he not only will not let sin go unpunished, but that he cannot but punish sin, is manifest,"

"...from sin being punished in Christ, the Surety of his people, it may be strongly concluded, that punitive justice is essential to God; or otherwise, where is the goodness of God to his own Son, that he should not spare him, but awake the sword of justice against him, and inflict the whole of punishment on him, due to the sins of those for whom he suffered, if he could not have punished sin, or this was not necessary?

"and, indeed, where is his wisdom in being at such an expense as the blood and life of his Son, if sin could have been let go unpunished, and the salvation of his people obtained without it?

"and where is the love of God to men, in giving Christ for them, for their remission and salvation, so much magnified, when all this might have been without it?

"but without shedding of blood, as there is no remission, so none could be, consistent with the justice of God;

"no pardon nor salvation, without satisfaction to that: could it have been in another way, the prayer of Christ would have brought it out, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass me” (Matthew 26:39)."

Lol...A lot of people deny deny Penal Substitution.

The early church denied penal substitution. All Christians before the 16th century denied penal substitution.

I'm not sure where you are going with your argument here.

By your argument I could say Presbyterians believe penal substitution suggesting that only Presbyterians believe penal substitution. But that wouldn't be fair.

 

[Alan Gross]

If sin is imputed to the offering, it is no longer effective to make a sacrifice.

So, are you saying sin, therefore, could have not been imputed to Jesus?

Only the shed blood of an innocent will do, like the blood of Abel but truly pure.

An innocent? Jesus, or no?

It is this shed blood that, paid to God, provides the necessary resources to fix what is broken.

What blood of what innocent, where?

To fix what, how?

The blood MUST be from an animal without blemish.

Is that it, that's all?

Blood has a purifying function as a spiritual detergent. It is also the currency that God accepts as payment for sin (leviticus 17).

What blood?

If you need me to list 40 new testament verses about our participation in Christ's death, I will.

I'll take 4.
...

Lol...A lot of people deny deny Penal Substitution.

A lot of people deny salvation through Jesus and practice or except those as members who were sprinkled as infants, or baptize infants, otherwise, and every other accommodation, for the lost to be members, on and on, etc.

I'm not sure where you are going with your argument here.

You and Arthur say a lot about what you don't believe, but I am grasping for something solid about what you actually do believe, that negates PSA as being inaccurate, or insufficient.

Except this, below, and I don't understand it. Did you mean to say, "not knowing sin was made sin for us", like that? If so, what does that mean?

I DO believe that Christ died for our sins, became a curse for us, not knowing sin was made sin for us, and in Him we escape the wrath to come.

 

[Alan Gross]

The early church denied penal substitution. All Christians before the 16th century denied penal substitution.

"A Highway will be there...", thanks to the work of Jesus Christ,
in His Penal Substitutionary Atonement, for God's Elect.

"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work", the Eternal Plan of Salvation.
John 5:17b.

from:
How Does Penal Substitution Relate to Other Atonement Theories?

"...Scripture does stress the centrality of Christ’s priestly office
and his sacrificial death for our sins.

Matt 1:21; And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

1 Cor 15:3–4; For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

And given the centrality of Christ’s cross, it’s crucial that we explain it correctly."

"First, views other than penal substitution fail to grasp the central problem that the cross remedies, namely our sin before God.

"Second, from another angle, other views stress various legitimate entailments of the cross but without penal substitution as their foundation, these entailments alone cannot explain the central problem of our sin before God.

"Penal substitution had precursors in the early church and even in Anselm. It came to fullness in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras.

"Penal substitution does not deny the multi-faceted aspects of Christ’s death such as the restoration of what Adam lost, the defeat of the powers, the revelation of God’s love, and so on.

"Instead, it contends that central to the cross is God the Son incarnate acting as our new covenant representative and substitute to satisfy fully the triune God’s righteous demand against us due to our sin.

"Apart from this central achievement of the cross, there is no restoration of humanity, there is no defeat of the powers, and there is no love revealed.

"Why?

"Because at the heart of penal substitution is a specific understanding of the God-law-sin relationship—or better, a specific theology proper.

"Penal substitution takes seriously the fact that the triune God is alone independent and self-sufficient.

"Specifically, in relation to the moral law, this entails that God does not adjudicate a law external to him; instead, he is the law.

"This is why, in relation to sin, God cannot tolerate sin.

Hab 1:12–13; Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.

13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

Isa 1:4–20; 35:8; 4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

5 Why should ye be stricken anymore? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.

8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.

9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

35:8 And a highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

he must act in holy justice against it.

Gen 18:25; That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

because he cannot deny himself.

con't

 

[Alan Gross]

"And yet, how does God demonstrate his holy justice
and covenant love, given his free decision to redeem us?

Gen 3:15; And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Hos 11:9; I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

"In this regard, the Bible’s storyline reveals a tension that’s rooted in who God is vis-à-vis sin.

"This tension is central to the why of the cross.

"Since God is the Law, he cannot forgive us without the full satisfaction of his holy and righteous demand.

Rom 3:21–26; But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Heb 9:15–22; And for this cause, he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

"To justify the ungodly
(Rom 4:5; But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.),
the triune God must take the initiative to provide a Redeemer who can pay for our sin and act in perfect obedience for us.

"Christ must not only be our victor and substitute, but he must also be our penal substitute.

"Ultimately, satisfying God’s justice is central to the cross, and other views of the atonement fail to stress this vital point."

 

[Alan Gross]

The early church denied penal substitution. All Christians before the 16th century denied penal substitution.

Video: The Real History of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - BibleThinker

Here is Gary Williams’ defense of his own work on PSA
in the early church fathers.

 

[Arthur King]

So, are you saying sin, therefore, could have not been imputed to Jesus?



An innocent? Jesus, or no?



What blood of what innocent, where?

To fix what, how?



Is that it, that's all?



What blood?



I'll take 4.
...



A lot of people deny salvation through Jesus and practice or except those as members who were sprinkled as infants, or baptize infants, otherwise, and every other accommodation, for the lost to be members, on and on, etc.



You and Arthur say a lot about what you don't believe, but I am grasping for something solid about what you actually do believe, that negates PSA as being inaccurate, or insufficient.

Except this, below, and I don't understand it. Did you mean to say, "not knowing sin was made sin for us", like that? If so, what does that mean?

-Sin could not have been imputed to Jesus. That would have ruined the efficacy of his sacrifice.

-Yes, Jesus was innocent.

-The blood of Jesus on the cross.

-We were broken in our sin. Dead in our transgressions. Jesus participated in our death, so that we might participate in his resurrection.

-Verses that don't align with substitution:


Mark 8:34-35 - “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.”

That's not substitution.


Mark 10:39 - “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.

That's not substitution.


John 12:23-26 - “ The one who loves his life loses it, and the one who hates his life in this world will keep it to eternal life. If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also."

That's not substitution.


1 Peter 2:20 - For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps…

That's not substitution.


1 Peter 4:1-2 - Since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God.

That's not substitution.


Galatians 2:20 - I have been crucified (co-crucified) with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

That's not substitution.


Philippians 1:28-30 - For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.

That's not substitution.


Philippians 3 -
"...that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

That's not substitution.


2 Corinthians 1:5 - For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ.

That's not substitution.


2 Corinthians 4:10 - We are always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.

That's not substitution.


Romans 6:3-7 - Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

That's not substitution.


Romans 12:1 - Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

That's not substitution.


Hebrews 13:13 - So, let us go out to Jesus outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

That's not substitution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Video: The Real History of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - BibleThinker

Here is Gary Williams’ defense of his own work on PSA
in the early church fathers.

Thank you for posting that link. I haven't read it all yet, but what I have read is very thorough. Garry Williams has a lot more patience than I have got.

 

[Arthur King]

Thank you for posting that link. I haven't read it all yet, but what I have read is very thorough. Garry Williams has a lot more patience than I have got.

Right at the beginning of his paper, in the "Definition" section, he is struggling to define what he means by penal substitution.

"An author can be held to teach the Penal doctrine if he plainly states that the punishment deserved by sin from God was borne and dealt with by Jesus Christ in his death on the cross."

He clearly wants a definition of penal substitution broad enough that he can find it in more of the Church Fathers than those who actually taught it (there are Church Fathers who talked about Jesus' death in penal substitutionary terms, just not as many as PSA defenders claim).

It is not enough to say "sin deserves a penalty, Jesus suffers that penalty, and thereby deals with it." That is not specific enough. Penal substitution needs at least 2 requirements:

1) That Jesus' death is just, deserved, to satisfy the requirements of retributive justice. If someone argues that Jesus suffers the penalty due to sin UNJUSTLY, undeservedly, then that wipes out the whole mechanism of penal substitution.

2) That Jesus' death is substitutionary, that is, he suffers something so someone else does not have to. If he suffers the penalty WITH someone else, that wipes out penal substitution.

PSA does not claim that Jesus merely "deals with" the penalty for sin. It claims that he exhausts it upon himself justly, to satisfy the requirements of retributive justice. And the penalty therefore does not fall on others, because it fell on and was exhausted by Jesus.

 

[JonC]

Video: The Real History of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - BibleThinker

Here is Gary Williams’ defense of his own work on PSA
in the early church fathers.

I don't really need to see their defence.

The fact is Penal Substitution was not articulated until late in Christian history.

That does not mean it is wrong. Antiquity does not mean correct. It means old.

But the Early Church did not teach - as far as we know by their writings - that God punished Christ instead of punishing us.

What Penal Substitution theorists do is read passages they quoted or statements they made which are common to all Christians and assume they would have agreed with Penal Substitution.

It is very dishonest to do that with Early Church writings because those people are not here to answer for or against any statements that they did not express.

I appreciate many who believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement across many denominations (Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, and so on).

But Christians who take advantage of dead saints to forward their agenda or beliefs are dishonest - even if well meaning. They take the lazy way out by dismissing what people actually wrote in favor of what they assume.

That is how we get foolish claims like Justin Martyr holding Penal Substitution (which he did not express) instead of Therapeutic substitution (which he stated). Or Gregory of Nazianzus holding Penal Substitution (which he did not express) rather than Medical Substitution (which he wrote about).

We should not trust "scholars" who look for support in the early church. Instead we should let history (their works) stand by themselves and speak for their selves. See what they are saying and take them for what they said.

 

[Alan Gross]

-Sin could not have been imputed to Jesus. That would have ruined the efficacy of his sacrifice.

"For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;"

that is, the sinless Jesus, Who was made sin,
not inherently, by a transfusion of sin into Him, which His Holy Nature would not admit of;

but imputatively, by a transfer of the guilt of sin unto Him,
by placing the guilt of sin to His account,
and making Him answerable for the guilt of sin;

which was done, not merely at the time of His suffering and death,
though then God openly and manifestly "laid upon him,"
or made to meet on Him, "the iniquity of us all," of all the Lord's people,
when "the chastisement of their peace was on him;"
or the punishment of their sin was inflicted on Him, to make peace for them;

but as early as The Council of Peace was held,
and the above method was concerted and agreed to.

Jesus participated in our death,

This is beginning to articulate where you're at.

That is the most bazaar thing I've heard in a while.

-Verses that don't align with substitution

Those verses don't intend to teach about salvation, by substitution, but the crucified lifestyle of the crucified flesh, after salvation, by the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling enablement.

Thank you for posting that link. I haven't read it all yet, but what I have read is very thorough. Garry Williams has a lot more patience than I have got

This we know, so far; from How Does Penal Substitution Relate to Other Atonement Theories? "Of all the atonement theologies, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross. The alternatives either minimize or deny that God’s holy justice is essential to him, why our sin is first against God(Ps 51:4), and why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross.

"Before we can speak of the horizontal entailments of the cross, we must first speak of the vertical—namely the triune God, in his Son, taking his own demand on himself so that we, in Christ, may be justified before him (Rom 5:1–2).

"Other atonement views either miss or undermine this point. For them, the object of the cross is either our sin (forms of recapitulation), or Satan (ransom theory), or the powers (forms of Christus Victor). But what they fail to see is that the primary person we have sinned against is our great and glorious triune Creator and Lord, and as such, the ultimate object of the cross is God himself."

 

[Arthur King]

"For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;"

that is, the sinless Jesus, Who was made sin,
not inherently, by a transfusion of sin into Him, which His Holy Nature would not admit of;

but imputatively, by a transfer of the guilt of sin unto Him,
by placing the guilt of sin to His account,
and making Him answerable for the guilt of sin;

which was done, not merely at the time of His suffering and death,
though then God openly and manifestly "laid upon him,"
or made to meet on Him, "the iniquity of us all," of all the Lord's people,
when "the chastisement of their peace was on him;"
or the punishment of their sin was inflicted on Him, to make peace for them;

but as early as The Council of Peace was held,
and the above method was concerted and agreed to.



This is beginning to articulate where you're at.

That is the most bazaar thing I've heard in a while.



Those verses don't intend to teach about salvation, by substitution, but the crucified lifestyle of the crucified flesh, after salvation, by the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling enablement.



This we know, so far; from How Does Penal Substitution Relate to Other Atonement Theories? "Of all the atonement theologies, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross. The alternatives either minimize or deny that God’s holy justice is essential to him, why our sin is first against God(Ps 51:4), and why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross.

"Before we can speak of the horizontal entailments of the cross, we must first speak of the vertical—namely the triune God, in his Son, taking his own demand on himself so that we, in Christ, may be justified before him (Rom 5:1–2).

"Other atonement views either miss or undermine this point. For them, the object of the cross is either our sin (forms of recapitulation), or Satan (ransom theory), or the powers (forms of Christus Victor). But what they fail to see is that the primary person we have sinned against is our great and glorious triune Creator and Lord, and as such, the ultimate object of the cross is God himself."

Reposting what I have said about 2 Corinthians 5:21

Penalty substitution advocates use 2 Corinthians 5:21, that “God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in HIm,” to support the concept of double imputation, that our sin was imputed to Jesus so that his righteousness could be imputed to us. They want the verse to say something like, “He made him who knew no sin to be sinful (or guilty of sin by imputation) on our behalf so that we might receive the righteousness of Christ from him (modifications in italics),” but this is not what the text says. NT Wright’s commentary on this verse is very helpful. In the second part of the verse, the phrase “the righteousness of God” does not mean “the righteousness of Christ,” which would refer to the Messiah/Son’s legal status of righteousness. The “righteousness of God” refers, again, to God’s covenant faithfulness to bless all nations through Israel. When Paul says, “we become the righteousness of God,” he is saying that the people of God, the Church in Christ, has become an outworking, demonstration, and manifestation of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. Paul is not talking here about the imputation of Christ’s legal status of righteousness to us.

If Paul is talking about a demonstration or manifestation rather than an imputation in this second part of the verse, it follows that he is doing the same thing in the preceding half of the verse, in which he says “God made him who knew no sin to be sin”. Paul is not saying that our sin or guilt was imputed to Jesus, but that the sinless man Jesus was made into an outworking, demonstration, and manifestation of our sin. This certainly describes the cross. The cross is the greatest sin in human history, in which all sin against God and all sin against Man are inflicted upon the God-Man Jesus Christ. No sin that any of us has ever committed is greater than the sin we committed when we crucified Jesus. The worst aspect of any one of our sins is that it contributed to the death of God’s Son. On the cross, Jesus was made my sin. He was made into a demonstration of every human’s sin. Why? So that through Jesus’ resurrection, God would show His faithfulness to his covenantal promises to restore the earth from sin’s destruction.

So here is a paraphrase of the verse: God made Jesus, who knew no sin, to be made a manifestation of sin on our behalf, so that we sinners could, in Christ, become the manifestation of God’s covenant faithfulness. As NT Wright says, “God made [the Messiah] to be sin on our behalf, so that in him we might embody God’s faithfulness to the covenant.” (Paul and the Faithfulness of God p.20) NT Wright makes the argument also in Resurrection of the Son of God:

Remember the question that is always in the back of Paul’s mind, as well as his Jewish audience: “God, how are you going to prove yourself faithful to your promise to bless all nations through Israel, given that Israel is a nation of sinful human beings?” Paul’s answer here is that, just as God used a sinless person to demonstrate the sinfulness of humanity, so also God uses sinful human beings (in this case the church as the new Israel) to demonstrate His covenant faithfulness.” Humanity’s sin was proved through the cross, and God’s faithfulness is proven through the church.

A couple analogies: Consider the photograph of "Whipped Peter" that was printed in major newspapers preceding the abolition of slavery in the United States. It is a photo of a slaves brutally scarred back. You could say that Peter "became America's sin." Many people finally understood the horrors of slavery when they saw that photo, all the sin was summed up in that one image. Or think of Emmet Til, the young black boy who was brutally tortured and murdered, and whose photo was widespread as a testament to American racism. Emmet Til "became America's sin."