Penal Substitution Hypothetical question

[JonC]

This is an open question - a hypothetical - but specifically addressing @DaveXR650 , @canadyjd and @Martin Marprelate .

The reason is I want to more fully understand what you are saying and exactly where our forgiveness was wrought.

And it is often best to explain what didn't happen in order to understand what did.


Suppose God laid our sins on Jesus, and punished our sins on Him instead of punishing us for those sins. Suppose this was accomplished on the Cross. And when Jesus cried out "it is finished" this punishment for our sins was done.

Then suppose rather than dying Christ ascended directly to the right hand of the Father.



How would this change forgiveness and salvation under Penal Substitution?

 

[JonC]

BTW....the answer to this question should at least demonstrate an important distinction between the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and classic Christian faith.

So I doubt it will actually be answered. But it is what viewers should at least consider when think about the necessity of Christ's death towards human redemption. So I'll try the keep it as a current question (I expect a lot of "bumps").

 

[canadyjd]

This is an open question - a hypothetical - but specifically addressing @DaveXR650 , @canadyjd and @Martin Marprelate .

The reason is I want to more fully understand what you are saying and exactly where our forgiveness was wrought.

And it is often best to explain what didn't happen in order to understand what did.

Suppose God laid our sins on Jesus, and punished our sins on Him instead of punishing us for those sins. Suppose this was accomplished on the Cross. And when Jesus cried out "it is finished" this punishment for our sins was done.

Then suppose rather than dying Christ ascended directly to the right hand of the Father.

How would this change forgiveness and salvation under Penal Substitution?

Does scripture say God “laid our sins on Jesus” or does scripture say “He became sin for us”?

The reason I ask is I want to understand the biblical foundation of the question.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

Does scripture say God “laid our sins on Jesus” or does scripture say “He became sin for us”?

The reason I ask is I want to understand the biblical foundation of the question.

Peace to you

There isn't a biblical foundation to the question. It is just a question to help me understand where exactly Christ's death falls into our redemption under the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

But your answer is both.

Isaiah 53:6 tells us that God caused the sin of us all to fall on Him and 2 Corinthians 5:21says that He was made to become sin for us.

My question, however, is centered around this question:

If rather than dying (after experiencing the punishment for our sins) Christ ascended directly to the right hand of the Father, how would this change Penal Substitution?

 

[canadyjd]

So, God caused our sin to “fall on” Jesus and Jesus “became” sin for us.

Doesn’t the statement “Jesus became sin for us” teach substitution?

I’m just attempting to clarify the foundation of your question do I can answer whether or not Jesus not dying changes PSA.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

So, God caused our sin to “fall on” Jesus and Jesus “became” sin for us.

Doesn’t the statement “Jesus became sin for us” teach substitution?

I’m just attempting to clarify the foundation of your question do I can answer whether or not Jesus not dying changes PSA.

peace to you

No. Sin cannot be cursed.
No. Jesus being made to be sin for us does not in itself teach substitution.

I asked a very simple question.

If Christ suffered our punishment instead of us and then ascended to the right hand of God without physically dying on the cross how would this change Penal Substitution in terms of redemption?

I think you may be avoiding the question. It is very simple (I am intentionally keeping it simple).

 

[DaveXR650]

If Christ suffered our punishment instead of us and then ascended to the right hand of God without physically dying on the cross how would this change Penal Substitution in terms of redemption?

I think you may be avoiding the question. It is very simple (I am intentionally keeping it simple).

You were doing this a long time ago. I don't understand your fixation on this aspect. If it is revealed to us that God required the death of the sacrifice and the shedding of blood why do you feel the need to parse that or question it? It almost seems like a smart aleck question. What would have happened if Christ would have ascended to heaven a split second after saying it is finished but before he died? What kind of a question is that? I suppose the most obvious answer would be that if he didn't utter those words before he actually died he wouldn't have uttered those words and we would not have them, would we. It was God's will that Christ die. Why inquire further. I have heard people say though that those words being uttered at that point demolish the idea that it was the resurrection and not the crucifixion that atoned for our sin - which is what your colleague argues. So keep that thought for the next time he drags that out.

 

[canadyjd]

No. Sin cannot be cursed.
No. Jesus being made to be sin for us does not in itself teach substitution.

I asked a very simple question.

If Christ suffered our punishment instead of us and then ascended to the right hand of God without physically dying on the cross how would this change Penal Substitution in terms of redemption?

I think you may be avoiding the question. It is very simple (I am intentionally keeping it simple).

I said nothing about a “curse”. Where did that come from.

If you claim that the scripture that says Jesus became sin FOR us doesn’t teach substitution, then what else could it possibly mean? That seems to be denying the plain meaning of words.

I can’t answer your question unless we can agree in the meanings of the words we are using.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

You were doing this a long time ago. I don't understand your fixation on this aspect. If it is revealed to us that God required the death of the sacrifice and the shedding of blood why do you feel the need to parse that or question it? It almost seems like a smart aleck question. What would have happened if Christ would have ascended to heaven a split second after saying it is finished but before he died? What kind of a question is that? I suppose the most obvious answer would be that if he didn't utter those words before he actually died he wouldn't have uttered those words and we would not have them, would we. It was God's will that Christ die. Why inquire further. I have heard people say though that those words being uttered at that point demolish the idea that it was the resurrection and not the crucifixion that atoned for our sin - which is what your colleague argues. So keep that thought for the next time he drags that out.

I can explain the reason. But that isn't the purpose of this thread.

In short, I believe the Atonement is a foundational doctrine that shapes how other doctrines are formed and understood. Therefore I believe whatever doctrine we hold of the Cross must be in the text of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

I said nothing about a “curse”. Where did that come from.

If you claim that the scripture that says Jesus became sin FOR us doesn’t teach substitution, then what else could it possibly mean? That seems to be denying the plain meaning of words.

I can’t answer your question unless we can agree in the meanings of the words we are using.

peace to you

So as not to change the topic, just go with your definitions


Suppose after God finished punishing our sins on Christ and after Jesus said "it is finished" that Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father without physically dying.

How would that affect your view of Penal Substitution?

 

[DaveXR650]

In short, I believe the Atonement is a foundational doctrine that shapes how other doctrines are formed and understood. Therefore I believe whatever doctrine we hold of the Cross must be in the text of Scripture.

That it is. Penal substitutionary atonement is the core of the gospel. It is the basis for all the other things done by Christ on the cross. Denial of it was considered the heart of the "Downgrade Controversy" as described by Spurgeon. Denial of it was considered a heresy by Wesley, Owen and everyone I have read. Even young guys like Paul Washer put failing to teach it at the very core of the problem with modern teaching. And it is in the text of the scripture. You just refuse to see it.

It should not be difficult to see that the references in scripture to blood sacrifice results in death. The life is in the blood, symbolically in scripture. The exact method was God's plan and will and it is blasphemous to speculate on whether he had to die or whether he could have just shed blood through a cut and then lived or whether he could have died of something not causing bleeding and so on. That would be descending into irreverence I think. I don't think there is a purpose to this. The concept of penal substitution is taught in scripture and is the core of the gospel. The early church fathers, in the writings we have, seemed to be interested in other aspects of Christianity but there are references to penal substitution in more than a few cases and they have been shared. The reformation theologians did the most complete job of looking into it and they back up what they say with multiple scriptures. Your constant refusal to acknowledge that is remarkable.

 

[JonC]

You were doing this a long time ago. I don't understand your fixation on this aspect. If it is revealed to us that God required the death of the sacrifice and the shedding of blood why do you feel the need to parse that or question it? It almost seems like a smart aleck question. What would have happened if Christ would have ascended to heaven a split second after saying it is finished but before he died? What kind of a question is that? I suppose the most obvious answer would be that if he didn't utter those words before he actually died he wouldn't have uttered those words and we would not have them, would we. It was God's will that Christ die. Why inquire further. I have heard people say though that those words being uttered at that point demolish the idea that it was the resurrection and not the crucifixion that atoned for our sin - which is what your colleague argues. So keep that thought for the next time he drags that out.

Brother, I am trying to be as specific as I can.

I believe we should examine doctrine very carefully.

On this thread I am asking a very simple question.

The reason I am asking is that the classic view of the Atonement depends very much on Christ's physical death.

Let's look at that and then - once we know how each stands - let's explore differences and interpretations.

We can't just ignore this and move on. It is important.

Suppose after God finished punishing our sins on Christ and after Jesus said "it is finished" that Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father without physically dying.

How would that affect your view of Penal Substitution?

 

[JonC]

Again....just a very simple question :

Suppose after God finished punishing our sins on Christ and after Jesus said "it is finished" that Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father without physically dying.

How would that affect Penal Substitution?

 

[37818]

Again....just a very simple question :

Suppose after God finished punishing our sins on Christ and after Jesus said "it is finished" that Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father without physically dying.

How would that affect Penal Substitution?

The prophecies of His resurrection would have to have never to have been made to have been needed. Psalms 2:7 for one, per Acts of the Apostles 13:33. The question needs to be asked. It was for the purpose, Romans 8:29, ". . . For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. . . ."
Also Colossians 1:18, ". . . And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. . . ." Revelation 1:5, ". . . And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, . . ." And Revelation 3:14, ". . . These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; . . ." For Revelation 21:1, ". . . And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. . . ." Again Romans 8:22, ". . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. . . ."

 

[canadyjd]

So as not to change the topic, just go with your definitions

Suppose after God finished punishing our sins on Christ and after Jesus said "it is finished" that Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father without physically dying.

How would that affect your view of Penal Substitution?

No need to speculate, Jesus died and was resurrected. These truths are described by the Apostle Paul to be of “first importance”.

I admit I haven’t yet figured out your “angle” for asking this hypothetical, though I’m certain you believe whatever answer will undermine PSA.

Why don’t you just tell us plainly what you think the answers will prove?

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

The prophecies of His resurrection would have to have never to have been made to have been needed. Psalms 2:7 for one, per Acts of the Apostles 13:33. The question needs to be asked. It was for the purpose, Romans 8:29, ". . . For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. . . ."
Also Colossians 1:18, ". . . And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. . . ." Revelation 1:5, ". . . And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, . . ." And Revelation 3:14, ". . . These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; . . ." For Revelation 21:1, ". . . And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. . . ." Again Romans 8:22, ". . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. . . ."

I agree that the Resurrection would not have occurred. And we are talking hypothetically.

As far as salvation, though, had Jesus suffered our punishment instead of us and then ascended without physically dying, would that change Penal Substitution itself?

Would we still be forgiven of our sins?

 

[JonC]

No need to speculate, Jesus died and was resurrected. These truths are described by the Apostle Paul to be of “first importance”.

I admit I haven’t yet figured out your “angle” for asking this hypothetical, though I’m certain you believe whatever answer will undermine PSA.

Why don’t you just tell us plainly what you think the answers will prove?

Peace to you

I do not have an angle.

I know how I, holding the classic view, would answer. I'd say without Jesus' death we would not be redeemed and forgiveness would not be possible.

But I do not believe Christ died instead of us. I do not believe that God punished Christ instead of punishing us.

I do not hold Penal Substitution Theory.

So I am asking those who do, only to discover that they have no answer. I find that odd.


When I held Penal Substitution Theory I would have said that it would not change Penal Substitution at all. Christ still suffered our punishment instead of us. We would be forgiven. The rest would have followed somewhat differently, but Christ would still have taken our punishment instead of us, He would still be enthroned on the right hand of the Father, we would still be clothed in His righteousness. And God would still judge the wicked at Judgment

But I no longer hold Penal Substitution Theory. So I am asking those of you who do.

It seems like many here do not actually know what they believe.


It is a simple question.

As far as salvation, though, had Jesus suffered our punishment instead of us and then ascended without physically dying, would that change Penal Substitution itself?

Would we still be forgiven of our sins?

 

[canadyjd]

I find it odd you would expect those who hold to PSA to answer a hypothetical that negates truths scripture tells us are of first importance.

If Jesus wasn’t resurrected, Paul tells us we are still in our sins. Does that answer your question?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

I find it odd you would expect those who hold to PSA to answer a hypothetical that negates truths scripture tells us are of first importance.

If Jesus wasn’t resurrected, Paul tells us we are still in our sins. Does that answer your question?

peace to you

I find it odd that a Christians seem unable to account for their faith.

It is important because it is a distinction between Penal Substitution Theory and the classic view.

Each views how the Cross plays into the redemption of man and the forgiveness of sin differently.

Only here, Penal Substitution theorists seem not to know what they believe.

As far as salvation and the forgiveness of sins, was this accomplished when God punished Jesus instead of us, by the time He cried "it is finished", and before He died?

 

[DaveXR650]

The reason I am asking is that the classic view of the Atonement depends very much on Christ's physical death.

Well the definitive work on the atonement would be Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". The title itself should answer your question. But if not, it's hard to tell where to start. You could start with Book 3 chapter 7 where he starts by saying "A third way whereby the death of Christ for sinners is expressed is satisfaction,- namely, that by his death he made satisfaction to the justice of God for their sins for whom he died, that so they might go free."
His death was essential. I have never come across anyone musing over the scenario you bring up though.

In chapter 9 he talks about the 3 parts of this. "First, Christ took and bare our sins, God laying them on him. Secondly, That he so took them as to undergo the punishment due unto them. Thirdly, That he did this in our stead." Verses in support follow. Then he says " ...our Saviour underwent the punishment due to the sins which he bare, which were laid upon him; which may be thus made manifest:-Death and the curse of the law contain the whole of the punishment due to sin." And more support scripture follows. Then he says "Now Jesus in bearing our sins underwent both these: for 'by the grace of God he tasted death, Heb. 2:9; by death delivering from death, verse 14. He was not 'spared, but given up to death for us all' Rom. 8:32. This chapter uses many scriptures to prove these concepts and then goes on to show how this was substitutionary, again with multiple scriptures.