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

Genesis 3:15, "the germ of all prophecy" - A.W. Pink

 

Part of this is straight out of N.T. Wright's New Perspective on Paul and some of it was predicted as the result of the NP by R.C. Sproul. My question again is that I would like to know if this is a significant belief system that is catching on in Baptist circles. We don't argue the theology of the Catholic Schoolmen on here. In fact, we stop their attempts to get on the site. If this is a significant movement among Baptist circles it would be worth looking into but if not then my question would be why the need for this deconstruction attempt on this forum?

You carefully sidestep issues by these constant statements which frankly are a different gospel and then go back in the same sentence to I guess preserve some type of orthodoxy. Like above, "Christ's suffering and death was not God's righteous judgment on sin" and in the same sentence "He was in fact, bearing their sin, suffering the wages of their sin". Most people find that a direct contradiction or at least a way to deconstruct what I think all Baptists believe without going so far as to be labeled as unorthodox.

So one more time, is there a significant movement among Baptist circles to move in this direction? Or is this the musings of a couple of guys. If all that you say is true about the atonement, then why could you not conclude that for a gentile living in 2023, it would not be sufficient just to say "Well, I figured as much. I do and always did respect the teachings found in the Bible and am glad this all happened, even though we don't understand it. I try to be a good person. I never though, had any thoughts of Jesus being guilty or never was against him so I refuse to share any quilt in this. He's an OK guy by me and may have even been divine but honestly, I have never opposed him." Jon, what would you say to someone like that? I ask because that is the argument I see mostly when talking of spiritual things to "decent" folks and I think it is the unofficial belief of a large percentage of those who still occasionally attend a church.

 

Yes, Satan did that.

Yes, God did that.

Yes, God did that.

You can give Satan 'credit' if you want. I give God credit for playing Satan like a banjo string, AND, more importantly, for being The Righteous Judge:

God did that.

[add]

Respond with one of your usual humongous gobs of c & p and I'll not even look at it. Keep it concise and to the point.

 

Everything recorded in Genesis 3 has far more than a local significance. God’s attitude and action there were typical and characteristic. It was not Adam who sought God, but God that sought Adam. And this has been the order ever since. "There is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11). It was God who sought out and called Abram while yet an idolater. It was God who sought Jacob at Bethel when he was fleeing from the consequences of his wrong doing. It was God who sought out Moses while a fugitive in Midian. It was Christ who sought out the apostles whilst they were engaged in fishing, so that He could say, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you." It was Christ who, in His ineffable love, came to seek and to save that which was lost. It is the Shepherd who seeks the sheep, and not the sheep that seek the Shepherd. How true it is that "We love Him because He first loved us." O, that we might appreciate more deeply the marvelous condescension of Deity in stooping so low as to care for and seek out such poor worms of the dust. "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"... Also from Pink... Brother Glen

 

If Jesus was bearing their sin and suffering the wages of their sin - and there was a purpose in this, in other words, it was important that this happen in the plan of God, I am just repeating that I find this to be substitutionary and penal. And, a reconciliation was accomplished by this. The writings of the early church fathers show that they did have some concept of this. Of course we joyfully note that the fact that God raising Jesus shows that Christ was indeed vindicated and, if you believe in penal substitution, it even makes more sense because it proves also that God was propitiated or satisfied by what happened - but in what way can we know that this is a benefit to us as an individual. What N.T. Wright does is the same thing you do in that you confuse and blur this. You deemphasize the necessity of an individual salvation because of our individual sin in favor of the cosmic aspects. These cosmic aspects are true, but like I said in my previous post, the question still is, is there any necessity of me doing anything to respond to a knowledge received of all this if the operation of it is cosmic in nature.

Your gospel says nothing to the person I mentioned above who says that they are glad to hear this, and they respect this but they see no reason for them to think about it beyond that. Is such a person justified? Why or why not. Is anything required of individuals if our problems are of a cosmic nature and part of just being a member of the human race?

I hope you don't think it harsh to say "your gospel" but remember, this is your quote:

We don't seem to have the same gospel as you say yourself.

 

Why the need for "reconciliation". Has someone done something or is this all a misunderstanding?

Why should we be cursed? Who cursed us and was it right to do so. Or was this just a natural consequence of nature? If so, who set that up? Was it someone outside of God?

"We killed him" is fine but I understand it as participating in the redemption that Christ provided, the propitiation for my sin. If that is not true, then I have every right to say that I in no way participated in this. And I would be on my way to Socinianism. But I did participate because Christ was taking my sin upon himself in a penal, substitutionary atonement.

All the other aspects of the atonement, by the accounts of everyone from Owen to modern writers, while true, do not address the fundamental aspect that our sin is a problem and it's a problem of being an unreconcilable barrier between us and God. Attempts to say we are making God less than an average human who can forgive without satisfaction don't work because we are not in charge of how things are and of setting up the order of the universe. Plus we, unlike God, have ourselves already been forgiven much. Bottom line is that penal substitutionary atonement is found in the writings of "traditional Christianity" and to the extent it wasn't developed fully - that just shows that they were not perfect either. This should not be a surprise if you read their other literature.

 

What I am insisting on is that "bearing our sin" really is bearing our sin. That is substitution and as we can see from the events that took place on the cross there was a "penal" aspect to it. To claim a bearing of our sin and yet saying that because you choose to declare that not a substitution won't work for people who read this. If Christ bore our sin, by definition he did it as a substitute. I think it's John 3:36 that says of the one who doesn't believe in Christ that the wrath of God abides on him. That would imply that by believing there is somehow a removal of wrath, which means that "wrath" and judgment are involved in our sin rather than it being an infirmity or state resulting from natural consequences of sin.

This is the last thing I am going to say on this because we repeat ourselves over and over and we will continue to disagree. But I think if you read up on who is saying the stuff you say and look at what else they are saying and then see where it leads you will understand my concerns. What you have is a transitioning of Christs work and purpose from individual salvation and forgiveness of sin to a general renewal of mankind. This in my opinion is attractive to theologians who want to still be theologians yet have an appeal to the modern mind so as to maintain some level of acceptance with the world. You can trace the progress of N.T.Wright's theology and see him gradually leaving the "gospel" as we know it. He says so himself. I see also elements of Socinianism is this method of looking at the atonement also. I don't mean you do it, because you, and N.T. are fully of the belief that Christ is the Christ but when it comes to forgiveness you can see the similarities. I appreciate the discussion but I have said all I know to say. I do believe the gospel without penal substitutionary atonement is a different gospel and will leave it at that.

 

Forgive me for the follow up: In discussing and debating the atonement for many years now, I realize more and more that the starting point really has to be the definition of sin, and why it is a problem.

I agree that sin is breaking God's laws. 1 John 3:4 "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." And breaking God's laws deserves His righteous wrath. This is not in dispute.

However, it is essential that we understand fully what it is entailed in the act of breaking God's laws, or we will misunderstand the purpose of God's wrath in response to law breaking. A person cannot break God's laws without disordering themselves. They cannot break God's laws without exchanging the Creator for that which is not the Creator (Romans 1). Think of someone who says "I am a perfectly ordered being who kept God as my ultimate source of worship but I broke His laws"—no, that is nonsense. We are designed to love God above all else. He is our source of happiness. And so to rebel against Him is also to rebel against our own design and our own happiness. It must be. To not affirm that is to say there are other ultimate goods than God, which is moral relativism—so it is a serious problem.

Notice that when Adam and Eve sinned, they not only broke God's laws, but they simultaneously, in the act itself, attempted to replace God with themselves, and in actuality submitted to the serpent, a beast over whom they were supposed to rule. Disorder. And notice in the proto evangelion, the first gospel in which the child of the woman crushes the head of the serpent, this action puts the serpent back under the feet of humans where he belongs. The gospel reorders sin's disorder.

It is inescapable that sin itself is disorder, decreation, destruction. These take place in the act of sin itself, prior to any penal actions on God's part.

So why does God punish sin? It is not to introduce destruction to sinners. Sinners are already destroying themselves in sin. It is not to introduce suffering to sinners. Sinners are already suffering in sin. It is not to prove His justice. God would be perfectly just to leave us rot in our sin forever. It is not to restore His damaged honor. Adam and Eve dishonored themselves by sinning. God punishes sin to stop sin's destruction - to protect the creation that He loves. He wants to destroy the corruption threatening His creation. As Revelation 11:18 says, "He will destroy those who destroy the earth."

But this means that wrath is not the central problem. Take away wrath, and sinners are still damned in their own sin. What we need is for our sin to be destroyed, and for us to be remade in right order. This happens through participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. It cannot happen through substitution - my sin needs to be destroyed. And so I have to physically die. My sinful flesh must die. If penal substitution were true, I would not physically die—physical death is a punishment for sin after all. I also would no longer sin after my sin was imputed to Jesus.

As far as the turning away of wrath (propitiation) which is an important effect of Jesus' death, that is achieved because means were provided to fix what was broken, thus making wrath unnecessary. I crash into your car and do $1,000 of damage. You are angry. You will put me in jail unless I pay to fix the car. I pay you $10,000 - ten times the damage. You are not longer angry (propitiation). Because resources were provided to fix what was broken.

 

But the reason for that is because God's order and creation so require it. Otherwise there would be no basis to make such a statement.

This is true and partially enhances what I said above. This is a good answer for someone who claims that they avoid hurting others and otherwise directly avoid obvious or heinous offenses against God's laws. They still, by living a disordered life where the things of this world and flesh are more important to them than God, are guilty of sin and offensive to God.

I won't quibble as to the timing, whether things happen due to a man's sin before there is direct penal judgment by God, but still, even those things are due to God setting up the natural order of things so that this is true. Otherwise it would not be true.

I don't accept this illustration for these reasons. It's very possible that a nice lady may accidently damage my car. My "wrath", if it existed at all, would only be for the inconvenience of having to deal with the situation. It may have been an accident and no malice was intended. At the worst, it may have been due to carelessness or incompetence. If it was done with malice then fixing my car would not in any way propitiate my wrath. In the case of God, if I had violated known commands, or esteemed them lighter than my own pleasure, or had hurt or injured his other subjects to satisfy my own desires then no, paying a fine by someone else would not act as a propitiation. In addition, normally, punishing someone else would not help either. The whole process of redemption required so many special conditions that it is a once in human history event and can nor will ever be repeated.

In addition to that, there is what the Puritans would call infirmity or sins of infirmity or indwelling sin. Here's where explanations of atonement that show a recapitulation or Christ's victory over Satan and Christ setting things aright so that we can be united with him and raised to walk in newness of life are true and important. This applies to our ability to be regenerated as well as gives an answer to the problems of physical death, disease, and deformity in our fleshly bodies. But when you guys deny penal substitution you mess up the gospel in a big way. Now, as I was pointing out to Jon, I'm not saying that you guys are, but when you read up on this, the folks who are doing what you do to the atonement really are trying to deemphasize the gospel and make Christianity more acceptable to the world. This is done by deemphasizing our need before God for reconciliation on an individual basis, based on our own sin, and by making the atonement more of trying to bring a new world that is better and not worrying so much about offensive talk of the need for individual repentance and belief.

 

"even those things are due to God setting up the natural order of things so that this is true."

Are you saying that all disorder due to sin should be seen as God's wrath?

If sin itself is disorder, wouldn't that necessitate you saying that all sin is wrath? Essentially you would be collapsing sin into wrath at that point.

I have talked with people (they have been hardcore Calvinists) who have admitted this view. They admit that sin is disorder, but want to maintain that all disorder must be seen as God's wrath (because God's wrath needs to be the central problem on their soteriology), and so they say that all sin is God's wrath. Adam and Eve eating of the fruit was God's wrath. Abel being murdered was God's wrath. Dinah being raped was God's wrath. Stephen being martyred was God's wrath. On this view, there are only two forces in the world: God's grace and God's wrath, and sin is just a type of God's wrath. Ultimately, all human acts of sin are motivated by and indeed manifestations of God's wrath.

I think this view is highly problematic, but it seems to be where you are going.

 

Look what you did there. You set up a scenario that was totally yours, then turned around and applied it to me. Say whatever you want but own it yourself, don't attribute it to me. All I said was that if you try to make man's problems into more of an unfortunate condition than a result of sin against God you still have the problem of why this is. This is because you will still find God as the first cause and the reason the reality is what it is.

If I tell someone that when they go to the beach and instead of splashing in the waves like everyone else, if they choose to swim out a mile and then play until they are exhausted, they will die is that a case of the consequences of that being a part of natural law? Yes it is, but at the bottom of it you still have God, who made us a certain way and that is the reason we are unwise to swim so far out. Other creatures do it all the time but not us. The fact that you can observe what looks like a natural event does not change the fact that God set that up. And this is an easy illustration.

If God says not to eat the fruit from a certain tree and there is no obvious reason not to, just his command, and I go ahead and do it - in that case there is no natural component at all. The only reason for the consequences that follow are that I disobeyed God. Is it really so farfetched to assume then that when there specifically is no "natural" consequence that we can see that the disaster that follows is due to God's displeasure, or dare we say wrath? How many times is "wrath" found in scripture related to God. Is that valid or not. What does R.C. Sproul say about this?

 

I am just trying to understand your critique of my position, because I am not following. It sounds like you are saying:

"If Dave sins against God and destroys himself in the process, that is not a God-centered view.
But if Dave sins against God and God punishes him afterwards, that is a God-centered view.
In order to have a God-centered view, all destruction due to sin needs to be seen as God's punishment."

I have no idea why this would be the case. Jeremiah 2:13 says that we have forsaken the fountain of living waters. What happens to people who do that? They die. Because of an action of the fountain? No. Because of the action of the people who refused to drink water. And I see no reason why this would be an "anti-fountain" view. The glory of the fountain (to sustain people in the hot wilderness) is demonstrated whether people drink from it and live, or refuse to drink and die.

If I build you a car to drive, and then you drive it off a cliff, you don't get to come back to me and say "Well, YOU designed the car not to go off cliffs." No, you were the one who drove it off a cliff.

Concerning Adam and Eve eating the fruit, again the narrative is all about disorder of God's creation in the act itself. Adam and Eve try to elevate themselves above God (disorder). They submit to a serpent over whom they are supposed to rule (disorder). They rebel against their own source of happiness and life (disorder). They look upon one another with shame prior to God ever entering the garden in Genesis 3:8. Disobedience is not just "offense deserving punishment." It is disorder, within the act of disobedience itself. Yes, it is disorder because it is God's creation. It is disorder because we are designed to love God. This is not an anthropocentric view. God and His order are what define disorder. But the ACT of disorder within the act of sin is the act of humanity.

I just don't understand why the view that "humans destroy themselves in their own sin against God" is not a God-centered view.

 

Nothing wrong with that view at all. Unless it is done in order to minimize the idea of what sin is. The idea of working and striving just to survive, if you have any kind of orthodox faith, is usually considered part of the "curse". Right there is your answer. Indeed, God has withdrawn his protection and the set-up so to speak of our human life so that we are subject to many things. Some of them are outside of the idea of direct sin like disease, deformity, or accident doing normal life. Some are easier to see as sin even if they fit the first group - the fetal alcohol syndrome child or someone hurt because of someone else's actions. And of course it is true that we should, even in our present world, be able to see that usually if you follow the wisdom of God's way of life it will result in some measure of improved outcome. After all, it isn't a stretch to assume from scripture that God is "for us" and that his commands are not designed to harm us.

So no. Not directly. But it is true that God actually did something when man sinned to creation and he did it as a direct response to man's sin. It was more than just letting man go on in his own way - which I agree is plenty destructive.

I would ask you if you think that there is not an aspect of you, yourself, and of course me too, as needing forgiveness and deserving the wrath of God - or are you wanting to make this all a matter of God setting things right. The problem here is that if that is the case two things come to mind. One, why can't a person just say thanks to God for handling that and I'll try not to be against you as I live my life but I'll talk to you later? (Because this doesn't directly concern me and I'm happy with my current life.) And two, and it relates to the first, why did God just not do this curse thing in the first place, or if he did, why not just fix it sooner or whenever, but what does it have to do with me.

 

"Nothing wrong with that view at all. Unless it is done in order to minimize the idea of what sin is."

See, this is interesting because I feel like the understanding that offending God is inherently self-destructive is part of truly taking sin seriously. The view that "sin is only a problem because God punishes it" seems to vastly minimize the seriousness of sin. It implies that sin could be a fun, happy, life-giving experience unless God punishes it. That humans can actually be happy without God. Even more dangerously, it indicates that there are actually other ultimate goods than God - which is moral relativism.

Any tyrant can say "That behavior offends me and I am going to punish someone who does it." Only the Creator can say "this is the way I have objectively designed the universe and you in it. To violate this order is to destroy yourself."

"But it is true that God actually did something when man sinned to creation and he did it as a direct response to man's sin. It was more than just letting man go on in his own way - which I agree is plenty destructive."

Correct. But things would have been far worse if God let humans go their own way - that is how serious sin is. Humans do things to themselves and each other that God would never do to humans.

Consider the story of David, when God allows him to choose his punishment for disobeying God by ordering a census of Israel. God says to David “I am offering you three things; choose yourself one of them which I will do to you . . . Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days’ pestilence in your land?” David’s response is “Let us now fall into the hand of the Lord for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man.” Notice that David doesn’t choose the punishment he does want, he only chooses which punishment he does not want, which is falling into the hands of sinful human beings. God’s punishments are perfectly just and merciful, while human sin has no such bounds. God's wrath is good and just and merciful, human sin is evil and unjust and without restraint.

"I would ask you if you think that there is not an aspect of you, yourself, and of course me too, as needing forgiveness and deserving the wrath of God - or are you wanting to make this all a matter of God setting things right."

We are already under God's wrath. We are children of wrath (Eph 2), born into a world under God's judgents. We are exiled from paradise and the presence of God, consigned to physical death, destined to toil, experience strife in relationships (Gen 3), living in a creation subjected to futility (Rom 8). The wrath of God has been revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness (Romans 1). The wrath ship has already sailed. Why are you not experiencing the beatific vision right now? Wrath. Wrath that is also for your protection, for being sinful in the presence of a holy God would be a hell of a thing.

Forgiveness is the offer of restoration from a state of brokenness or deficiency. Sometimes it involves mitigation or cancelation of punishments, but not always. Forgiveness is specifically tied to Jesus' resurrection. Look how the apostles preach the gospel in Acts: you killed him, but God raised him. Because God raised him, you can be forgiven from your sins. Forgiveness is resurrection in Christ from our state of deadness in sin (Eph 2:1-10)