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

Response to the man, the myth the legend: @DaveXR650

Are you saying that the work of Christ on our behalf was an outworking, demonstration and manifestation of our sin and that is the extent of what His death accomplishes at the atonement?

Not necessarily. That is just what Paul is talking about in 2 Corinthians 5:21.

The cross is where all humanity put Jesus to death. The cross is where you and I tortured and killed Jesus by our sins. "The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all" means that WE killed him. Not that God imputed our sins to him so that he became guilty in some sense and then killed him in our place as deserved punishment.

You correctly say that Jesus didn't literally become sinful ( which I agree with), and refuse to accept "imputation" of sin, yet have no trouble making us all guilty of Christ's death - but how? We weren't there, so it must be by imputation. Peter preached that message to the people who were there but not to everyone, everywhere.

I don't have a problem with the idea of imputation in general. But you can't just imputation like a magic wand whenever you want in order to make guilty parties innocent and vice versa. Imputation must still be bound by the priorities of justice.

For example, someone could have my debt imputed to them and pay off my debt in order to satisfy the priority of restitution.

Imputation can also be used to say I killed Jesus, even though I lived 2,000 years in history after him.

However, I could never have a murderer's crime imputed to me so that I go to the electric chair in his place - because that does not satisfy any priority of justice. The priority of retribution is not that the justice system punish someone, but that the sin of the sinner is stopped or destroyed. This happens for us when we die physically. "He who has died is freed from sin" (Romans 6). This is why you will continue to sin until your physical death.

Then you say "On the cross, Jesus was made my sin". What gives? You deny imputation of sin, which would allow Jesus to suffer the guilt and penalty without actually being made sinful yet you turn around and say "Jesus was made my sin".

But my whole post explains this, right? Let's say Bob tortured and killed Mike. Mike's tortured and bloody dead body is found by the police. If they pointed at Mike's mutilated body and said "This right here IS Bob's sin" that is the sense in which I think Paul means it. Look again at the example of Whipped Peter in the OP. I have been very clear in what I mean.

 

Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Colossians 2:6-15)

 

Sorry Arthur. The only way the above makes any sense is by imputation. You and I simply were not there - without imputation. You cannot make those of us living today responsible for Christ's death unless it was a planned purposeful event by the Father and the Son to effect our redemption. If Christ bore our sins on the cross then we want to say we participated and then it is certainly valid to look upon that event as what sin really leads to. But without the imputation of our sin and guilt to Christ you have no more right to say we did it than you could tie us to any other ancient atrocity.

That is why, contrary to another thread you are trying to start, the gospel preached by the apostles was not that "you crucified Christ" unless they were preaching to those - who crucified Christ, or to those under authority of the Priests who were part of it and believed it was the right thing to do.

No. Your post is confused like most who try to spread half baked theology.

 

Response to the brilliant and noble: @Martin Marprelate

You say: Psalm 44 is often called the martyrs' song. Yet it ends, 'Arise for our help, and redeem us for Your mercies' sake.' That prayer will have been swiftly answered in the light of Psalms 37:25.

That Psalm 44 is called the "martyr's song" proves my point. Thank you. They are innocent and suffering unjustly, and yet they attribute all sorts of harsh language to God about their treatment, therefore such language cannot be used as sufficient evidence of a "deserved punishment" narrative:

You have rejected us and brought us to dishonor,

You give us as sheep to be eaten

You make us a reproach to our neighbors,
A scoffing and a derision to those around us.

You have crushed us in a place of jackals
And covered us with the shadow of death.

But for Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.

Why do You hide Your face
And forget our affliction and our oppression?
For our soul has sunk down into the dust;
Our body cleaves to the earth.

This is all extremely harsh language attributed to God as direct treatment of these individuals. Notice, importantly, that it is also sacrificial language. But it is all CLEARLY in the context of righteous people suffering unjustly.

Language of harsh treatment by God is just not evidence of "deserved punishment of a guilty person." We find the same language used of innocent people suffering unjustly.

And Zechariah 13 does not describe ANYONE escaping harsh treatment:

“Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered;
And I will turn My hand against the little ones.
“It will come about in all the land,”
Declares the Lord,
“That two parts in it will be cut off and perish;
But the third will be left in it.
“And I will bring the third part through the fire,

The Servant is struck, the "little ones" are also struck (God turns his hand against them). And everyone else either perishes or passes through the fire. There is no "substitution" here. All are going to go through tribulation.

Where does the Bible say that God killed Abel? Where does it say that He killed Stephen? Joseph was not killed, but where does it say that God killed Abel?

The Bible clearly and explicitly want us to see Jesus' death as like Abel's death, like Stephen's death, like Joseph's suffering, like Naboth's death. Unjust treatment of the righteous.

Amen! The blood of Abel cried out for justice (Genesis 4:10); the blood of Christ speaks of reconciliation (Ephesians 2:13). The blood of the covenant which has been shed is the blood of an innocent person who has been unjustly murdered, like Abel except better than Abel.

That Hebrews says the sprinkled blood of the covenant is like that of Abel's is so strong. Clearly we are to think of the blood of the covenant as the blood of a righteous person whose blood is unjustly shed by murder.

What you and other penal substitution advocates want to say is that Jesus' shed blood, the blood of the covenant, is like that of Goliath, or of Herod in Acts 12, or of Agag. You want to say that it is the shed blood of a guilty person who is suffering deserved wrath at the hands of God. But that is just not the Biblical picture. We are explicitly told it is a different narrative.

It is the blood of an innocent Person, but our Lord was bearing all the sins of His people (1 Peter 2:24), and paid the price of their iniquities and the curse attached to them.

Paying the price (Jesus paying our debt of obedience) is completely different that being punished as our substitute. We have been over this. Changing the subject to the faulty idea within penal substitution that payment and punishment are the same thing is a poor debate move.

You are also assuming a wrong definition of "bearing the sins." That does not mean that our sins were imputed to him such that he became guilty. It means that he is dealing with the consequences of our sins, or indeed being sinned against. You are trying to smuggle an entire legal philosophy of imputation and guilt into that phrase which is totally unwarranted.

The Passover lambs were a type of Christ. Were they killed unjustly? 'The LORD will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.'

I will do a separate post on the Passover. Hint: Exodus explicitly states that Israel suffering in Egypt was the suffering of God's firstborn son. See Exodus 4:22. The slavery of Israel in Egypt is a crucifixion type event.

 

Did you miss this sentence?

"Imputation can also be used to say I killed Jesus, even though I lived 2,000 years in history after him."

I spend 16 hours composing each response, so I hope you read them.

 

No. I saw each of those contradictory, rambling, inconsistent thoughts. You decide which it is you want and then go with that.

 

Where is the contradiction?

"I am guilty of the death of Jesus" is not the same statement as "Jesus is guilty of my sin."

You seem to be thinking "If I am guilty of the death of Jesus by imputation, then it follows that Jesus is guilty of my sins through imputation" which is a complete non sequitur. Those are two completely different concepts.

Just because "legal imputation" can be a valid concept, does not mean ALL ideas of legal imputation are valid. Again, you can't just wave imputation around like a magic wand.

 

The point is, you do. You cannot simply declare that someone killed Christ who was not directly involved. In order to make a connection for someone who did not directly do the deed it has to be by imputation. And there still has to be a valid connection. The connection is that Jesus was taking on the wrath of God and the just punishment that we deserved because of our sin that we can be said to have been there. Imputation can't be waved around like a magic wand but when it is needed it really is needed and that is a case where it's needed.

You have a theology that has no meaning as far as Jesus death being an actual remedy for our sin. I am truly suspect of any such theology and would love to know where it comes from. The fact that you are so evasive on that makes me even more concerned.

 

Everyone has a commentary on Romans. What penal substitution advocate that you know of alters Romans chapter 6 in their commentary. You are floundering and your last two posts look unintelligible.

 

For a Christian, any Christian, regardless of theology, the way it is in present reality is either the direct doing of God or the outworking of what is ordained by God. Our mortality and our vulnerability to disease, accident and so on is the judgement of God according to scripture. It is valid to view it in a sense as "punishment". Why is it appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgement? Because that is when there will be a final judgement.

I truly have never never heard of anyone who doesn't. This is the core of your faulty method of studying the Bible. Both are true. If you find a verse where one thing is said it does not mean that the other idea is false. We get into the same problem on other threads where Calvinists and non-Calvinists simply cannot believe for instance that God is completely sovereign and at the same time man's responsibility to respond is also completely true. They find a verse and behold, the other position must therefore be false.

 

The idea that God can use evil men to accomplish His will and still have the end result be the desired will of God is not in dispute. That is true. But if the desired end result is the redemption of many, and there is something happening in this event, in that all the various results we have come to know of as results of the atonement (including a direct covering or removal or offering for our sin), then of course God is directly in this, and God himself would be this power.

Where you go wrong is that you take a verse that says Jesus was crucified by wicked men and for some reason refuse to allow that to reside along side a verse that say He gave himself a ransom for many. Both are true.

 

Yes. And was made sin for us describes part of the concept of penal substitution. Many other verses indicate the same thing. That book I got on the atonement by Torrance has been very enjoyable to read and he goes into the other aspects, especially the cosmic aspects that I had not been well versed in. But he also spends a lot of time on the penal substitution aspect and had no trouble including that as an essential part of the atonement.

If you are trying to say something else just say it and stop beating around the bush. I think Torrance may have objected to the fact that some took penal substitution and made it "mechanical" so that it was something that was done and then God himself couldn't change anything at that point. In fact, while we know that all judgement is now committed to Jesus we still must be forgiven by him. The verses that indicate penal substitution show us why and why this can be done justly and without violating the holiness of God.

If you're trying to say that you cannot claim your sins have been taken care of by penal substitution and so therefore living a life of obedience to God is not essential I would say don't reject penal substitution, just read the Puritans. They can match the early church, the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, and the Moravians in the area of Christian living. You don't need to reject penal substitution for that reason either.

There really is no reason to keep going round and round in this. I see it and don't see how anyone could miss it. You don't.

 

". . . made him to be sin for us, . . ." Is still a proxy in some way.