Featured 2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't support penal substitution (reposted)

That was specifically to Jon. In the book by Torrance, he does not refute penal substitutionary atonement. But he does go into a long explanation of why it cannot be a "limited" or particular atonement as the Calvinists often insist on. It wasn't directed at anything you had posted and I didn't even mean to imply where Jon comes down on this - only to point out that that is a good way to refute Owen. Without that argument Owen flat out wins. It probably didn't belong in this thread and I apologize for getting off track.

In general the motivation of someone in a theological discussion is not a secondary issue. It is huge and when you are confronted with a theological argument, like someone refuting penal substitution, the very first and most important thing you need to do is find out where they are coming from and why. I don't see how you would not agree with that since many of the alternate theories on the atonement come from those who do not believe in a resurrection either.

 

The only problem here is I see the idea of "Jesus was made my sin" and then "He was made into a demonstration of every human's sin". They are both true and the resurrection certainly proves God's faithfulness. But you are saying there that God in some way, with his Son, dealt with our sin. While it does demonstrate human sin, and it demonstrates God's feelings (wrath) about sin, there still is an aspect of a direct "something" that God and Jesus accomplished regarding our sin - as individuals. The idea that advocates of penal substitution play down the essential need of the resurrection is simply not true if you read them. And you also don't want to get "wrath" mixed up with pagan deities who need to be propitiated. Wrath is Biblical and in indicates God's righteous opinion of sin. He judged our sin on the cross. While we don't know exactly how, the many references to blood, and the tie ins with animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, the book of Hebrews, discussion of Jesus priestly office, Jesus references to his own blood and so on have lead men who want to systematize theology to state this as penal substitution. It is sound.

 

But if the guilt or sin is imputed to Christ then that is not the case. That's what I was saying earlier. You cannot refute the idea that sin is imputed and then turn around and refute the idea that Jesus truly became sinful. Those who believe in imputation do not believe Jesus was an actual sinner, that's why they say "imputation".

If you mean a true Christian then yes, but this is the whole problem. Many of the modernists who deny penal substitution definitely to NOT believe that our sin was dealt with in some way on the cross. So when you deny penal substitution the question immediately comes up, "What exactly happened on the cross?." This is something you must answer even when you espouse good views of the atonement. Christ was victorious over the powers of darkness, he did defeat Satan's kingdom and lead people out of bondage like Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, he did redo the first Adam's fall and set things right. All the cosmic and general things that Christ is said to have done are true. But still, there is an aspect that is clearly taught in scripture - that Christ dealt with our sin on the cross. So then you get into paying a ransom or a substitutionary atonement. You can't escape from it.

This is the subtle changing of things I find exasperating. What the thief on the cross said was true. He was not giving a theology lesson. And yes, the reason we say "buried with him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life" is because without that union with Christ none of this will help you. But if Jesus died as a perfectly innocent party - and it was necessary that he be perfectly innocent - because we then, in union with Christ and guilty, could die with him and be raised with him to walk in newness of life - then obviously what happened here was that somehow Christ's death as just was for us as unjust. You will always end up back at penal substitution. If you really look at this, and you insist on no substitution, then you destroy the necessary connection between Christ's sinlessness and our guilt. You seem to be deliberately trying to downplay that connection.

I haven't been able to figure out why this is attempted. Like I said before, the most innocent thing I can find is that it is an attempt to get around a definite atonement. But it is a fact that modernists have tried to do this in order to be able to retain Jesus's ethical teachings while not having to deal with the offense of the cross in polite, intellectual society.

 

Jon, honestly, of all the arguments people use that is the least compelling. This thread, which is a rehash of an identical thread, which is the 20th of many threads on the same subject begins with someone quoting scripture. Everyone is using scripture. We just don't agree on what it means.

There is is no demand made by penal substitution itself. By definition it's too specific and just doesn't cover that area. There are plenty of demands for one who has been saved. It's not the subject here but most of the older preachers understood this and preached that good works and love and all kinds of Christian virtues were essential for salvation if by essential you mean that they will be there or you are not a Christian. If you believe you are accomplishing your justification by those things then yes, you are off in a different direction from Protestant Christianity. In that sense they are not "causative" of your justification.

 

I am pretty sure that all the penal substitution proponents read scripture and see God of heaven showing substitutionary atonement from Adam onward with the perfect substitute being Jesus. The application of scripture is quite clear, it is from scripture and it is substitutionary.

There is a new, emergent, movement that desires to tone down sin and make it less vile and repugnant to God so that the Old Testament becomes unnecessary as a school teacher in regard to substitutionary atonement.

If others desire to follow a path away from substitutionary atonement they can do so, but don't expect those who read scripture and apply it to follow down that emergent path, which inevitably leads to liberalism.

 

That's not correct. Penal substitution is very specific and thus does not include belief, repentance, good works and so on. It is separate for purposes of discussion and teaching. People who advocate penal substitution have different understandings of how belief and repentance come to a person in salvation but penal substitution, as a teaching in no way leads to or is a part of easy believism. You may not like the Protestant view of justification by faith alone. Some anabaptists didn't either, the Catholics didn't, and for a while Richard Baxter didn't either. Some even are of the opinion that Jonathan Edwards was less than perfectly sound on it. In practice, our human minds I imagine are full of different impressions and understandings that may come out as a little "off". Martyn Lloyd-Jones goes into that some regarding Wesley and Baxter.

 

It doesn't include those things because the because it isn't about those things. If I explain to you how a transmission works you don't reply that my explanation fails to explain the way the engine works too. That's what I meant. Penal substitution is the very heart of what happened during the crucifixion of Christ - specifically in relation to the fact that we are individually sinners and scripture seems to indicate that is a problem. If the atonement doesn't deal with that in some way then either you are still in your sin or it never really mattered. The other aspects of the atonement do not deal with this area. It does not mean they aren't true but without penal substitution I don't think you can deal with that area - our guilt and our individual sin. If I said that a transmission is the only thing that matters in a car I would be wrong but if I talk only about the transmission when I'm explaining a transmission that should not be a problem.

When it comes to salvation the same thing occurs. What must I do for God to forgive my sins? In a sense, nothing. Is that easy believism? If you think that there is some merit that you can contribute that will sway God's opinion toward you then you don't get the gospel. But I have no problem saying you must believe in Christ, repent of the path you are currently on with the intention of now attempting to follow Christ. This is really part of your belief because you are realizing that the way you were going was not God's will and now you want to do God's will. But as you can see it also describes repentance.

What exactly do you think the Classical Christians believed about this? I know a lot of the ECF's believed baptism was essential. I know Augustine did. If you are trying to say that there are Christian virtues or Christian works that are necessary for justification you are wrong and the anabaptists who say that are wrong also. I don't get too upset with them on that because I believe that those things must be present to some degree in a person who lives on this earth for a time after becoming a Christian. You are saved by faith alone but that faith is never alone. Yet I fully understand the difficulties of the mental gyrations of someone trying to figure this out. We "what if" too much. Justification does not involve works on our part. But then don't turn around and then say it doesn't matter what I do now that I'm justified. And don't do that with penal substitution. The guys that argued penal substitution best were the same ones that said continuing to live in known sin was damnable.

 

xxxxxxx

 

At its core this theory of the "righteousness of God" is weak at best and has no real support. It appears that you have relied on it simply because it came from a noted scholar like Wright and have little else to support it. Wright, in this quote, fails to support this theory. In James he addresses a list of sinful behavior and in doing so in 1:20 he speaks of the "righteousness of God". The context does not lend to this theory you have posted by Wright but clearly speaks to the purity and moral rightness of God's character of which we should work to emulate. In Romans 10:13 Paul speaks of those who "did not submit to God's righteousness". Again this is not talking about covenant faithfulness but the moral character of God.

Further, in 1 Corinthians 1:30 it says "And because of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption," clearly it says here that Jesus became these things which are directly attributed to God. 2 Corinthians 5:18 says that "All of this is from God" and then goes on to list what is from God; reconciliation, gave us the ministry of reconciliation.

"In Christ, God, was reconciling the world to Himself" v.19 The entire context is what God is doing for man through Christ. Hence we become the righteousness of God. It doesn't have to say the righteousness of Christ in order for imputation to be valid. God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are one God. Context is King and the context here is the work of God through Christ and in this case God the Father made God the Son to be sin or in other words to take on our guilt so that we take on the righteousness (moral character) of God. We must be careful with scripture and not work to isolate verses so as to fit our presuppositions.

 

Depends on how one defines PSA.

If the definition is, Christ died for the specific sins of specific foreseen individuals, chosen individually before creation, and paid the penality that was or would be owned for those sins only, then PSA is not supported anywhere in scripture.

If, OTOH, the definition is Christ died to provide the opportunity for humanity's sins to be forgiven, as a substitutionary sacrifice, then Christ's provision for the means of reconciliation is supported by the entire Bible.

 

It seems you're mainly looking to have a superiority complex by claiming a vague "Classic View" and then not clearly defining it.
The Bible always presents a substitute for the guilty sinner. God substitutes animal clothes for the naked sinners in the garden. God requires the Passover Lamb as a substitute for the death of a firstborn. God gives a substitute scapegoat for the sins of the people. God gives us Jesus, the Lamb of God, to substitute for our guilt, once and for all.
Nowhere in the Bible do we read of God forgiving sins without justice being required from a substitute payment for those sins.

Forgiveness is never given if justice is not met.
You seem to think the Bible tells you that forgiveness is given without any requirement of justice. That concept of forgiveness without justice is never expressed in the Bible.
Therefore, whatever "Classic View" you are pointing toward that doesn't require justice is really an emergent thought not expressed in the Bible.

I wonder why you are so adamant against a substitute for your sins when that is the clear teaching throughout the entire Bible. That is the "Classic View" which is substitutionary.

I understand that you will likely find a nit to pick, but I have made my point. I will back out of this seemingly silly thread.

 

That is crude and irreverent but it does show how with your explanation the death of Christ was unnecessary. The "justice system" you flippantly talk about is God's view of sin. There are big problems here and I would like to see a list of Baptist churches who officially hold to your theology on this. I am willing to bet that they have big problems in other areas too.