• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

God is Just and the Justifier of Sinners (Continuation)

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650

If you are interested in an honest discussion about the differences in beliefs (either the Classic vs Latin in general or or mine vs yours specifically) then we have to start at the beginning rather than placing one anothers views in our own context

That would be interesting, and it would help understand how opposing views deal with redemptive history. But it would also be complex (the disagreements are not as simple as "gotcha" moments many seem exists).
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
If you are interested in an honest discussion about the differences in beliefs (either the Classic vs Latin in general or or mine vs yours specifically) then we have to start at the beginning rather than placing one anothers views in our own context
There will be no honest discussion on here regarding this as long as you steadfastly refuse to concede that Jesus bearing your sin means more than solidarity and that Christ as Victor in some way involves him doing something for our sin as part of achieving the victory. Whenever I look at Youtube videos or read articles on this they never get bogged down in these points because they seem to have at least some respect for what the other person says. No one else, anywhere, tries to make the claim that there was a unified "Classic" idea of the atonement either.

I just want to say that I am thankful for a couple of you guys who get on here and try to keep this site from getting way off track by messing up the atonement. It bothered me that the same posters who will fight to the death over the precise meaning of whether there is a true "offer" of salvation when the gospel is preached or whether a 4 pointer can really be a Calvinist have no interest when someone like Jon comes on with views that I think can cause real damage to Christianity.

@JonC. I told you before, after your last false accusation, that I'm not engaging you on this. You seem to deliberately dance around the issues, intersperse this with passive aggressiveness and putting on your moderator hat. People who might really be interested in learning about this can find some good, respectful discussion from William Lane Craig, or from Tom Schreiner, and even from Tom Schreiner debating N.T. Wright. In those cases you don't seem to find this mental block and obsessiveness you see here with Jon who just keeps bringing me into this after I specifically said I am done with him and his discussion on this topic.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
There will be no honest discussion on here regarding this as long as you steadfastly refuse to concede that Jesus bearing your sin means more than solidarity and that Christ as Victor in some way involves him doing something for our sin as part of achieving the victory. Whenever I look at Youtube videos or read articles on this they never get bogged down in these points because they seem to have at least some respect for what the other person says. No one else, anywhere, tries to make the claim that there was a unified "Classic" idea of the atonement either.

I just want to say that I am thankful for a couple of you guys who get on here and try to keep this site from getting way off track by messing up the atonement. It bothered me that the same posters who will fight to the death over the precise meaning of whether there is a true "offer" of salvation when the gospel is preached or whether a 4 pointer can really be a Calvinist have no interest when someone like Jon comes on with views that I think can cause real damage to Christianity.

@JonC. I told you before, after your last false accusation, that I'm not engaging you on this. You seem to deliberately dance around the issues, intersperse this with passive aggressiveness and putting on your moderator hat. People who might really be interested in learning about this can find some good, respectful discussion from William Lane Craig, or from Tom Schreiner, and even from Tom Schreiner debating N.T. Wright. In those cases you don't seem to find this mental block and obsessiveness you see here with Jon who just keeps bringing me into this after I specifically said I am done with him and his discussion on this topic.
First, be honest. I told you that I misread your post and I apologized (you left that out here). There was no "accusation" on my part, but a response due to my error which I addressed.


You are wrong, BTW. We do not have to agree for honest conversation to be had. Neither of us has to concede the other correct in order to honestly discuss our beliefs. That is the problem with these "camps". People want to discuss beliefs as long as the other person concedes they are wrong. People want an echo chamber because they cannot defend their beliefs or understand anything outside their traditions. Nothing is gained in an echo chamber. The reason I enjoy your explanations is because we believe differently.

As far as me "putting on my moderator hat", I have not moderated these discussions at all. You seem to be trying to put the "moderator hat" on me to deflect from your unwillingness to honestly discuss the differences in beliefs. I have not mentioned being a moderator on these threads because I am a member participating in the discussion.

I am unaware of anybody who believes there is a unified "Classic" or "Latin" view. These speak of an overall context (a motif) and really begins at the nature of redemption (what is "solved"). I apologize if I was not clear that within each category there were multiple beliefs. I thought I was clear on that, but apparently I wasn't.

If its helps you to grasp what people mean by those terms, think of them in the same way we think of political parties. With economic plans each party has certain ways of viewing the problem. But within those parties there are many sects, and these sects do not agree. It's not the best example, but the only one I can think of off hand.

The Classic view considers the work of Christ to be primarily focused on the transformation of man (with wrath being addressed seperately from the Cross) while the Latin view considers the work of Christ to be primarily directed towards God in order to satisfy the demands of God against man.

Within these two general themes or ways of looking at things there are many theories of atonement. But there is no unified Classic or Latin view.

The reason I mention those two groups (Classic and Latin) is these are overall understandings about how sin and redemption are handled. My point is we have to look deeper than "what was accomplished" (the conclusion) and deal with "what was the problem". Where on ends is usually dependent on where one starts.

The difference is not dealing with divine wrath, for example, but how and when in
the economy of salvation wrath is dealt with.

I expect many not to deal with discussing this topic simply because it can be uncomfortable to understand other beliefs that may contradict their own. Doing so requires self-examinatiin, a reevaluation of held beliefs, and accounting for ones beliefs. We are often tied to our beliefs emotionally because our beliefs are very personal. I am willing to work through my beliefs and account for my faith, but I do understand that you may not be as willing. And that is fine. While I believe it is best to be able to defend one's positions, I understand that people often look to men they respect for guidance on what to believe. I personally view these as "borrowed beliefs" (leaning on Lewis) but we all do this to an extent (I believe when I board an aircraft it will fly, without understanding the physics behind air travel).
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
For those who are able and willing to discuss different Christian views of Atonement, I am going to start with the Classic View (a general category or theme).

God created Adam. Adam was “upright”. Adam was “good”, created in God's image. God took Adam from the earth where he was created and placed Adam in the Garden. God gave Adam a command:

“you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Adam transgressed God's command. God told Adam what would happen because of his sin:
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it”

“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toili you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Because of Adam's transgression - through his sin - death entered the world and man would “return to the dust”.

The result of sin is death. From Adam forward mankind was held in the bondage of sin and death.

The Old Testament foreshadowed the coming Messiah, the One who would be “crushed” at the heel by the Serpent and the One who would “crush” the Serpent's head.

The Servant will suffer unjust oppression, the world will consider Him afflicted by God, but it is by His stripes men will be healed. God will lay upon Him the iniquity of man, make Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, lay our iniquity on Him, and He will bear our sins bodily on the Cross.

God would forsake Jesus to suffer and die on the Cross by the powers of the wicked, and Jesus would lay His life down willingly in perfect obedience to the will of God.

God would vindicate Jesus against these evil powers (the power of sin and death, of the Adversary) and raise Him on the 3rd day. He conquered death and freed mankind from sin and death. He is the “Second Adam”, the “Son of Man”. He became a Life-giving Spirit.

Those who believe in Him, though they may die, yet will they live.

Because of the Cross the grave is not the final state of man. Men are not destined to remain in Sheol but will be resurrected (some to everlasting life, others to condemnation). All judgment has been given to Christ, and He is the Criteria of this judgment. In Him there is no condemnation. Those in Him have been born of the Spirit, died to the flesh, died to sin and death. The old has passed and they are new creations in Him.

Those who rejected Christ remain in their sins and condemned. They will not escape the wrath to come but will experience the Second Death when Sheol and death is cast into the Lake of Fire.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Now, it is an error to read that divine wrath against the wicked is not addressed. It is most certainly addressed, but not by punishment.

Part of the reason is this view does not look at sin in a materialistic way. Instead sin is viewed as a power (specifically a power of evil). Sins are more than sinful acts to be punished. So this view looks at God's wrath to be against the wicked and against sins as an evil rather than against actions (a parent may be angry at a child for skipping school, but not really against skipping school itself..it's the power or spirit of disobedience in the child at issue and the act merely a manifestation of that power).

Another reason is this view does not seperate the Incarnation, Christ's life, and the Resurrection from the Atonement. Where physical death is the consequence of sin addressed by Christ unjustly experiencing this death under the same powers that held us in bondage, the Christ-centered judgment on "the Day of Wrath" is our escape "from the wrath to come".

The Cross was Jesus overcoming sin and death as the Son of Man. The Day of Wrath or Judgment Day is completely Christ centered.

Sin and death was overcome and God is able to forgive sins (sinful acts). The reason is in Christ we die to ourselves, we are made new creations in Him. We are ultimately made innocent of sins....not guilty with somebody else being punished instead of us.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Some of the pros of this position in contrast to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement are:

1. It can be defended strictly by what is written in the text of Scripture rather than opinions about what somebody thinks is taught by Scripture (it is an objective position and disagreements center on the written text of Scripture).

2. All aspects of Christ's work are vital to the redemption of man rather than prioritizing one aspect over another (one unified narritive).

3. It relies on "what is written" in God's Word rather than one minority position dependent on theological development.

4. It is not dependent on Western judicial philosophy.

5. It mirrors the Old Testament sacrifice system without inserting God for the role of the Israelites, viewing the Levitical system as foreshadowing what was to come.

6. It maintains a distinction between the consequences of sin that Christians experience and the wrath of God at Judgment.

7. It is Christ-centered, focusing on the transformation of man through Christ and by the work of Christ rather than the Father punishing sinful acts.

8. It is legitimately ontological, taking the ultimate recreation of man, the spiritual birth, and death to sin/ flesh seriously rather than a legal metaphor.

9. It does not rely on Augustine's doctrine of sin (developed from Irenaeus) but instead maintains the Genesis narrative.

10. It is simplistic, and as it is not dependent on Western philosophy it can be understood both within and outside Greco-Roman traditions.

11. It maintains that God can forgive sins in contrast to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement which holds God can forgive wicked men but insists that it is impossible for God to forgive sins.

12. It maintains one applicable meaning of godliness based on the nature of God as revealed in Scripture and expressed to its fullest extent in Christ (we forgive because we have been forgiven and how we have been forgiven rather than we must punish wrongs against us).

13. It needs the Cross. I don't mean as a symbol for what occurred on the cross or just as a sign fulfulling Scrioture but a Roman cross itself for what Rome and crucifixion meant at the time.

14. It depends on Jesus' death. Penal Substitution Theory does not need Jesus to have died (to have experienced physical death) as long as He experienced the punishment for the sins God laid upon Him in our stead. This obviously excludes physical death because we experienced physical death.


@Martin Marprelate
These last few posts are a quick but incomplete summary of what I mean by our differences being deeper than imposing a few ideas into a different context. The context is different.

Each belief has to be examined within its own context. So there is a starting point from my beliefs if you find yourself able or willing for an honest discussion. Ask me of my belief and I'll ask you of yours.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
First, be honest. I told you that I misread your post and I apologized (you left that out here). There was no "accusation" on my part, but a response due to my error which I addressed.
People can read through this thread themselves. Your method of conduct is to accuse others all the time of dishonesty while you yourself never seem to address what they say but just keep repeating your old charges that what is clearly stated in scripture is not really there. Yeah, you misread the post, but that's the problem. You misread a lot of posts and then follow with false accusations. You are the only one on here who is truly honest according to you.
1. It can be defended strictly by what is written in the text of Scripture rather than opinions about what somebody thinks is taught by Scripture (it is an objective position and disagreements center on the written text of Scripture).
That's completely bogus, and in light of the repeated correction you see from scripture it is dishonest. Yet, you will come on and claim that I'm dishonest because I have the opinion that you are wrong. This is what I mean.
2. All aspects of Christ's work are vital to the redemption of man rather than prioritizing one aspect over another (one unified narritive).
Every discussion of penal substitution by people who support it includes all the other aspects of the atonement and explains in a painstaking way how they are linked. You are ignoring that either out of ignorance or dishonestly. Torrance does this. Even Barth. Certainly John Stott. You cannot possibly have missed all these. You had originally recommended Torrance.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
4. It is not dependent on Western judicial philosophy.
Neither is penal substitution. It is more easily argued that Western judicial philosophy came from influence of the Hebrew texts.
5. It mirrors the Old Testament sacrifice system without inserting God for the role of the Israelites, viewing the Levitical system as foreshadowing what was to come.
If you want to try to make the claim that penal substitution theory does not view the Levitical system as foreshadowing what was to come and can still read the book of Hebrews then we will just have to disagree.
6. It maintains a distinction between the consequences of sin that Christians experience and the wrath of God at Judgment.
Stott has a pretty detailed examination of this and a lot of information of how the concept of God's wrath works.
8. It is legitimately ontological, taking the ultimate recreation of man, the spiritual birth, and death to sin/ flesh seriously rather than a legal metaphor.
Advocates of penal substitution teach regeneration, being born again, being made a new creature very seriously and very literally. This is a ridiculous and false statement.
7. It is Christ-centered, focusing on the transformation of man through Christ and by the work of Christ rather than the Father punishing sinful acts.
There is a real danger, and a gutting of true Christianity, if the sin of man is not dealt with. If you want to do this fine, but it is then up to you to differentiate yourself from other groups who do the same thing.
10. It is simplistic, and as it is not dependent on Western philosophy it can be understood both within and outside Greco-Roman traditions.
Yes. Thanks for confirming the animosity I noticed toward that horrible Western philosophy.
12. It maintains one applicable meaning of godliness based on the nature of God as revealed in Scripture and expressed to its fullest extent in Christ (we forgive because we have been forgiven and how we have been forgiven rather than we must punish wrongs against us).
One of the most disgusting things in modern times is when a judge lets off a person who has done horrible things to an innocent person because it was no big deal to the judge. One of the biggest hopes is that people around the world and throughout history can cling to future justice being handled by God. God said "vengeance is mine". That means it's not our right. It doesn't mean it will never be. In Revelation a whole group of saints are waiting and saying "How long" until justice is served.
13. It needs the Cross. I don't mean as a symbol for what occurred on the cross or just as a sign fulfulling Scrioture but a Roman cross itself for what Rome and crucifixion meant at the time.
Penal substitution doesn't need the cross? This is another example of the attitude you have which kills any chance of reasonable dialogue.
14. It depends on Jesus' death. Penal Substitution Theory does not need Jesus to have died (to have experienced physical death) as long as He experienced the punishment for the sins God laid upon Him in our stead. This obviously excludes physical death because we experienced physical death.
That is such a slanderous and ridiculous statement that it doesn't merit a reply. Yet you continually try to assert that. This is a perfect example of what I was meaning earlier when I said there can be no meaningful discussion with you.

I'll say it again, one can find discussion on YouTube or articles all over the internet, if you are not into books, that do a much better job of going into these issues than discussing it with you. For some reason, none of these have the same mental blocks that you do and none obscure the discussion as much as you do. I recommend articles and books because they are referenced. Look at the attackers of penal substitution and look up their other beliefs and the articles on other subjects from the same sources. Then form your own opinion.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
@JesusFan has been claiming I believe things I have repeatedly rejected. I don't understand why, but that is what he has been doing.

I am not driving this thread, you and @DaveXR650 are. You two claim that my position does n9t exist, that I made up the "classical view" . So I posted a few that mention these categories.


If I were driving this thread we would be discussing how these views differ. As it stands, it seems that you two want to simply claim an opposing view does not exist.
I have not been accusing you brother of anything, other than that when I read NT Wright view on the Atonement, His view does seem to be in agreement of much of what you are now espousing regarding the Atonement/

Our main "issue" to me seems to be while I do allow for your Christ is Victor view as one of many legit ones, you appear like Wright to see it as being the only legit one can hold as per the Bible.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Post 205 on the previous thread. I started this one because after I posted I realized the thread had been closed.
Ah! Finally I see it. It's one of those five 'smiley' icons that are at the bottom of every post. I chose the one with the frowning face to register my daisagreement without getting into a discussion with you. :Rolleyes That didn't work, did it? The reason I do not like debating with you and avoid it whenever I can is that you do NOT discuss how the views differ. You have never, over ten years, properly defined your position, and when I gave a full presentation of my view you never addressed it in a meaningful way. You keep talking about a 'classic' view, which no one but you ever brings up and which you admit is not uniform. I want to hear your view because it would be with you I'm discussing
Therefore I really have no desire at all to debate with you. If I could put you on 'ignore' I would have done it ten years ago. However, the subject itself is of very great importance. If Christ has not taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, we shall have to pay for them ourselves.
Therefore, I will give below the portion of your post that I disagreed with. I am sorry that it came up as 'sad.' I did not mean it to, though false teaching does make me sad.
JonC said:
Classic Christianity also believes that God is Just and the Justifier of sinners. But this group (of diverse views) sees sin as a greater offense not only to God but also to man. Sins are not materialistic. Sin is much more than a moral issue. Simply punishing sins is not justice because it does not clear, or even address, guilt.
You will have to argue that out with God.
Let's get something clear straightaway. Sin is what sinners do, sinners are people who commit sins, and sinfulness is what causes people to commit sins. There are synonyms for sin such as 'ungodliness' and 'unrighteousness' and types of sin such as sexual immorality, covetousness, dishonesty, pride and so forth.
In both Testaments, God promises to punish people for their sins. In the O.T., the simplest place to look is Lev. 26:18, 21, 24, 28. In the N.T., in Romans 1:18 we learn that 'the wrath of God is poured out [present continuous tense] against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.' God cannot simply forgive sin and forget all about it because He is the righteous Judge. It must be atoned for by the one who committed it. 'The soul who sins shall die.' In the Law, unintentional sins could be atoned for (Numbers 15:27-28), but 'presumptuous' sins could not (vs. 30-31). In the New Covenant, the Lord Jesus Christ is the propitiation for all sins (Acts 13:38-39).
We read in Psalm 7:11 that 'God is angry with sinners every day,' and that He is just in being angry. He was angry when the Psalmist wrote the verse, and He is angry now because He doesn't change (Mal. 3:6). So how can God simply forgive sinners?
The only way is that God, before time began (Titus 1:2), set Christ forth as a 'propitiation' (Rom. 3:25) - a sacrifice that turns away anger or wrath. God is satisfied by the propitiation achieved by Christ. He really was pierced for our transgressions!
That is it! There is really nothing more to say. 'For God the just is satisfied to look on Him and pardon me!'
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
There will be no honest discussion on here regarding this as long as you steadfastly refuse to concede that Jesus bearing your sin means more than solidarity and that Christ as Victor in some way involves him doing something for our sin as part of achieving the victory. Whenever I look at Youtube videos or read articles on this they never get bogged down in these points because they seem to have at least some respect for what the other person says. No one else, anywhere, tries to make the claim that there was a unified "Classic" idea of the atonement either.

I just want to say that I am thankful for a couple of you guys who get on here and try to keep this site from getting way off track by messing up the atonement. It bothered me that the same posters who will fight to the death over the precise meaning of whether there is a true "offer" of salvation when the gospel is preached or whether a 4 pointer can really be a Calvinist have no interest when someone like Jon comes on with views that I think can cause real damage to Christianity.

@JonC. I told you before, after your last false accusation, that I'm not engaging you on this. You seem to deliberately dance around the issues, intersperse this with passive aggressiveness and putting on your moderator hat. People who might really be interested in learning about this can find some good, respectful discussion from William Lane Craig, or from Tom Schreiner, and even from Tom Schreiner debating N.T. Wright. In those cases you don't seem to find this mental block and obsessiveness you see here with Jon who just keeps bringing me into this after I specifically said I am done with him and his discussion on this topic.
Do you agree with me that much of what JonC has expressed yupon upon how he now views the Atonement does seem to agree with quite a bit of what NT Wright has written? This is not a "gotcha", just to me seems very similar
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I placed this on the forum several years ago. It represents my thinking on the subject of Penal Substitution. I also wrote an article on P.S. and the Trinity, which I will reproduce if anyone is interested.

Isaiah 53:6. ‘We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, into his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.’

Galatians 3:13. ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.’

First, a definition: ‘The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin’ (Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach. IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6).

The doctrine of Penal Substitution has encountered much opposition over the last several years. Having debated it extensively on a discussion forum recently, I thought it would be a good idea to write my thoughts out in depth and present them here. The temptation is simply to quote Isaiah 53:5-6 and finish there since these verses seem perfectly clear and comprehensive to me. However, since more evidence seems to be required, I give it below. This is quite a long post but I make no apology for that; the doctrine is so vital for the proper understanding of the Christian faith that it is worth spending some time upon it.

Penal Substitution is rooted in the character of God as He revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7. “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.” Immediately the question arises, how can God be merciful and gracious, how can He forgive iniquity, transgression and sin without clearing the guilty? How can He clear the guilty if He abounds with truth—if He is a ‘just Judge’ (Psalm 7:11)? How can it be said that, ‘Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed’ unless God can simultaneously punish sin and forgive sinners? The answer is that ‘God……devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him’ (2 Samuel 14:14). Those means are Penal Substitution. “Learn ye, my friends, to look upon God as being as severe in His justice as if He were not loving, and yet as loving as if He were not severe. His love does not diminish His justice nor does His justice, in the least degree, make warfare upon His love. The two are sweetly linked together in the atonement of Christ” (C.H. Spurgeon).

Right at the start of the Bible (Genesis 2:16-17) we have a direct command to Adam, Adam, the ‘first man’ (1 Corinthians 15:47): ‘And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree in the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”’ The command is accompanied by a penal sanction– death. Yet we know that in the Bible death is not restricted to simply the end of existence. ‘….It is appointed to men to die once, but after this the judgement’ (Hebrews 9:27).

In Genesis 1:28, we see that God blessed His creation; marriage, child-bearing and work are specifically mentioned in that verse as part of this blessing. But at the Fall in Genesis 3, the blessings are turned to curses. Childbirth is marked by pain, the marriage bond is marred, and work becomes hardship and struggle, with death as the final inevitable result (Genesis 3:16-19). These are penal sanctions by God; they are His righteous response to sin. Sinful men and women are not going to live in a perfect environment; every aspect of it has been marred by sin. ‘For the whole creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope’ (Romans 8:20).

So both our lives and our deaths are subject to the curse because of sin. We learn from Romans 5 that Adam was our federal head—what he did, we have done in him. Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sinned…..’ (v.12). God’s curse extends to mankind because we are every one of us sinners (e.g. 2 Chronicles 6:36). We read in Psalm 7:11 that ‘God is a just Judge [therefore whomever God punishes for sin must be guilty of sin], and God is angry with sinners every day,’ and in Proverbs 17:15 we learn that ‘he who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to God.’



So we come to the necessity of Atonement. We must be very careful in saying that God cannot do something, but the Scriptures tell us that God ‘cannot deny Himself’ (2 Timothy 2:13). In the light of Proverbs 17:15, God surely cannot become an abomination to Himself by justifying guilty sinners without a penalty for sin! Be it said that God is under no obligation to show mercy to sinful humans; the angels who sinned had no Redeemer but were ‘cast down to hell and delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgement’ (2 Peter 2:4). But if God, ‘according to the good pleasure of His will’ (Ephesians 1:5), has decreed mercy and salvation for certain sinful men and women, it surely cannot be at the expense of His justice. Someone must pay the price and satisfy God’s justice and His righteous anger against sin.

In the Scriptures we have the concept of the mediator, one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we learn that God does not impute trespasses against His people; in Christ; He has reconciled the world [believing Jew and Gentile alike] to Himself. How has He done this? Through the Mediator Jesus Christ. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….’ (v.21). The Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and made satisfaction to God for them. Therefore the message of reconciliation can be preached to all.

A similar concept is that of a surety. This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’ More on that verse presently.

In the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were made to God for the sins of the people. We read over and over again that creatures to be offered had to be without blemish (Leviticus 1:3 etc., etc.). ‘It must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it’ (Leviticus 22:21). Given that He is the fulfilment of the O.T. sacrifices (Hebrews 9:11-15 etc.), the physical perfections of the sacrificed animals speak of the moral and spiritual perfections of Christ. 1 Peter 1:18-19 speaks of ‘….the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.’ So it was necessary for the Lord Jesus to live the life that Adam failed to live– the life of perfect obedience to the Father’s will (Psalm 40:8). And this ‘Active Obedience’ is not a notional thing; it had to be lived out in the most practical way. Hence, ‘immediately’ after His baptism, ‘the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness’ (Mark 1:12-13) for an encounter with Satan. He must succeed where Adam fell.

God’s law makes two inexorable demands: ‘Do this and live’ (Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12), and ‘The soul that sins shall die’ (Ezekiel 18:4). The first demand our Lord has met in His perfect obedience. He was made ‘under the law’ (Galatians 4:4) and fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17). His obedience has been placed to the credit of His people (Romans 5:19) and they are now made ‘the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

For the second demand, we need to look again at Hebrews 7:22: ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’ Christ is specifically designated in Scripture as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) and we are told that the first Adam was a ‘type [or ‘figure’] of Him who was to come’ (Romans 5:14). ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). All those in Adam perish in their sins; all those in Christ are united to Him in His perfect righteousness.

[continued]
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26).

So we come to the concept of the cup of God’s wrath. In Gethsemane, our Lord prayed, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39). What was this cup which the Lord Jesus dreaded so much to drink? It is the cup of God’s wrath. ‘For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red. It is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drink’ (Psalm 75:8; c.f. Isaiah 51:17, 22; Jeremiah 13:13; 25:15; Ezekiel 23:32-34; Revelation 14:9-10 etc.). It represents God’s righteous judgement against a wicked world. This cup the Lord Jesus must drink down to the very dregs. All the wrath and punishment due to those whom He came to save was poured out on Him. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree….’ (1 Peter 2:24). ‘It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief’ (Isaiah 53:10). Why would it please the Father to bruise or crush His beloved (Luke 3:22 etc. ) Son? Because by His suffering, the Son magnified God’s law and made it honourable. Sin was punished in full, so that God ‘might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).

We learn in the Scriptures two things that the Lord Jesus became on our behalf. He became sin ‘for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), and He became a curse ‘for us’ (Galatians 3:13). First, He became sin. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.’ So God the Father made the sinless Christ to be sin on our behalf. What does this mean? Well, it does not mean that Christ was made a sinner; He was never that! It means that all the sins of God’s elect were imputed to Christ– that is, laid to His account (c.f. Isaiah 53:6), and He has paid the penalty for them (Isaiah 53:5). At the same time, His perfect righteousness and obedience to His Father’s will are credited to us who believe. This is what Luther termed the ‘Great Exchange.’ The sinless One made sin, and sinners made righteous through the cross.

It has been suggested that Christ was not made ‘sin’ in 2 Cor. 5:21, but a ‘sin offering.’ There are three reasons why this suggestion should be rejected:

Firstly, hamartia, the Greek word translated ‘sin’ never means ‘sin offering’ in the New Testament, though it sometimes does elsewhere.

Secondly, hamartia occurs twice in the verse, and it would be strange if it had two meanings in one sentence; but to say, “God made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us” makes no sense.

Thirdly, in John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of type of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? Well where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a type of Christ? He is a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

Next, we come to Galatians 3:10-13. God’s law pronounces a curse on law-breakers: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (v.10; c.f. Deuteronomy 27:26; James 2:10). We ourselves are cursed, for none of us have continued in God’s holy law. But, ‘Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law….’ How has He done that? ‘…..having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”’ (v.13; Deuteronomy 21:23). In God’s law it is written, so, as Luther says, ‘Christ hung on a tree; therefore Christ was accursed of God’ (Luther: Commentary on Galatians).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I have not been accusing you brother of anything, other than that when I read NT Wright view on the Atonement, His view does seem to be in agreement of much of what you are now espousing regarding the Atonement/

Our main "issue" to me seems to be while I do allow for your Christ is Victor view as one of many legit ones, you appear like Wright to see it as being the only legit one can hold as per the Bible.
You just did it again.

I disagree with NT Wright's position (and have stated why many times to you) yet here you falsely claim that I believe Wright's position the only legitimate one.

Those against penal atonement will usually claim that the need to have God appease his divine wrath is pagan, that to have the father pour wrath out upon Jesus is "cosmic child abuse", and where does it state in the NT that Jesus death was not due the will and plan of God theFather directly, but do to Him suffering under "wordly evl and system?"

And I have stated this is what you believe, just that many who hold to your view have stated that themselves


You make a false claim here because I disagreed that the Penal Substitution Theory is "cosmic child abuse". I said that the "cosmic child abuse" charge comes from people who do not understand Penal Substitution Theory.

I also have not claimed that Penal Substitution Theory itself is pagan. I am unaware of anybody pagan religion that believes God punished our sins laid on Jesus.

PLEASE STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
[Part three]
So what does it mean to be ‘accursed of God’? Let Paul answer first: ‘These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thessalonians 1:10). And then the Lord Jesus: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell” (Luke 12:4-5; c.f. Matthew 25:41). So what does hell feel like? Well, we may think of darkness, pain and, according to Paul, separation from the presence of God, save perhaps for His abiding wrath. We may add, perhaps, the mocking and abuse of others (c.f. Isaiah 14:10-11). All these things came upon the Christ. Of the pain it is hardly necessary to speak, save to note that it could not be diminished in any degree. Our Lord was offered wine mixed with myrrh, but He would not take it (Mark 15:23); it was an analgesic, but He must suffer the full agony of sin and the wrath of the Father against sin.
Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26).
So we come to the concept of the cup of God’s wrath. In Gethsemane, our Lord prayed, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39). What was this cup which the Lord Jesus dreaded so much to drink? It is the cup of God’s wrath. ‘For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red. It is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drink’ (Psalm 75:8; c.f. Isaiah 51:17, 22; Jeremiah 13:13; 25:15; Ezekiel 23:32-34; Revelation 14:9-10 etc.). It represents God’s righteous judgement against a wicked world. This cup the Lord Jesus must drink down to the very dregs. All the wrath and punishment due to those whom He came to save was poured out on Him. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree….’ (1 Peter 2:24). ‘It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief’ (Isaiah 53:10). Why would it please the Father to bruise or crush His beloved (Luke 3:22 etc. ) Son? Because by His suffering, the Son magnified God’s law and made it honourable. Sin was punished in full, so that God ‘might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).
We learn in the Scriptures two things that the Lord Jesus became on our behalf. He became sin ‘for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), and He became a curse ‘for us’ (Galatians 3:13). First, He became sin. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.’ So God the Father made the sinless Christ to be sin on our behalf. What does this mean? Well, it does not mean that Christ was made a sinner; He was never that! It means that all the sins of God’s elect were imputed to Christ– that is, laid to His account (c.f. Isaiah 53:6), and He has paid the penalty for them (Isaiah 53:5). At the same time, His perfect righteousness and obedience to His Father’s will are credited to us who believe. This is what Luther termed the ‘Great Exchange.’ The sinless One made sin, and sinners made righteous through the cross.
It has been suggested that Christ was not made ‘sin’ in 2 Cor. 5:21, but a ‘sin offering.’ There are three reasons why this suggestion should be rejected:
Firstly, hamartia, the Greek word translated ‘sin’ never means ‘sin offering’ in the New Testament, though it sometimes does elsewhere.
Secondly, hamartia occurs twice in the verse, and it would be strange if it had two meanings in one sentence; but to say, “God made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us” makes no sense.
Thirdly, in John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of type of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? Well where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a type of Christ? He is a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
[Part Four]
Next, we come to Galatians 3:10-13. God’s law pronounces a curse on law-breakers: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (v.10; c.f. Deuteronomy 27:26; James 2:10). We ourselves are cursed, for none of us have continued in God’s holy law. But, ‘Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law….’ How has He done that? ‘…..having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”’ (v.13; Deuteronomy 21:23). In God’s law it is written, so, as Luther says, ‘Christ hung on a tree; therefore Christ was accursed of God’ (Luther: Commentary on Galatians).
So what does it mean to be ‘accursed of God’? Let Paul answer first: ‘These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thessalonians 1:10). And then the Lord Jesus: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell” (Luke 12:4-5; c.f. Matthew 25:41). So what does hell feel like? Well, we may think of darkness, pain and, according to Paul, separation from the presence of God, save perhaps for His abiding wrath. We may add, perhaps, the mocking and abuse of others (c.f. Isaiah 14:10-11). All these things came upon the Christ. Of the pain it is hardly necessary to speak, save to note that it could not be diminished in any degree. Our Lord was offered wine mixed with myrrh, but He would not take it (Mark 15:23); it was an analgesic, but He must suffer the full agony of sin and the wrath of the Father against sin.

Of the darkness, we note that, ‘When the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour’ (Mark 15:33). By this time I suppose that the two thieves had fallen silent; the crowd had dispersed; even the Pharisees had got bored with mocking and gone home, and John had taken our Lord’s mother into his own house (John 19:27). The Lord Jesus hung alone—so utterly alone that about the ninth hour He cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Hitherto, He had enjoyed the closest imaginable relationship with the Father (Mark 1:11; 9:7; John 8:29; 16:32). Even in Gethsemane, when He was almost overcome with the prospect of the horror that was approaching Him, the Father sent an angel to strengthen Him (Luke 22:43). But now, on the cross, His greatest extremity He must endure alone. He was ‘made sin’ and the Father, whose eyes are too pure to look upon sin, turned away from Him. I know that some people find this hard to accept, but it must be true because the Holy Spirit has preserved His words for us. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning? O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent” (Psalm 22:1-2). Although it was 3 o’clock in the afternoon, it was the ‘night season’ for darkness had fallen upon the land, as if to hide the shame of the God-man made sin. For those hours, as a Man, He was quite literally God-forsaken.
But at the end of the ninth hour, the sun came out again. God’s outraged justice had been satisfied; propitiation had been made, save for the actual act of dismissing His spirit which followed almost at once. God could now be ‘just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus’ (Rom. 3:26). The way to heaven was now wide open, the veil was torn asunder, the one acceptable sacrifice for sin had been made.
One question remains to be answered: how could Christ’s suffering, which lasted just a few hours, pay an infinite price? How could an infinite punishment be borne in a finite time? The answer is that an ordinary person, even if their sacrifice were acceptable to God, which is isn’t, would indeed need to suffer for an infinite period. But the Lord Jesus Christ was not an ordinary person. Just as sin against God is especially heinous because of His infinite worth and goodness, so Christ’s propitiation is of infinite value in the eyes of the Father because of His own infinite worth. Therefore the sufferings of Christ were infinite in value because He is infinitely worthy. Scripture attests that ‘by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified’ (Hebrews 10:14). Finally, the Father’s satisfaction with Christ’s atonement is proved by the fact that He raised Him from the dead.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
People can read through this thread themselves. Your method of conduct is to accuse others all the time of dishonesty while you yourself never seem to address what they say but just keep repeating your old charges that what is clearly stated in scripture is not really there. Yeah, you misread the post, but that's the problem. You misread a lot of posts and then follow with false accusations. You are the only one on here who is truly honest according to you.

That's completely bogus, and in light of the repeated correction you see from scripture it is dishonest. Yet, you will come on and claim that I'm dishonest because I have the opinion that you are wrong. This is what I mean.

Every discussion of penal substitution by people who support it includes all the other aspects of the atonement and explains in a painstaking way how they are linked. You are ignoring that either out of ignorance or dishonestly. Torrance does this. Even Barth. Certainly John Stott. You cannot possibly have missed all these. You had originally recommended Torrance.
I know you believe my view is wrong. But you, again, are not arguing appropriately.

I say "pros of my belief are" and "I believe...".
Your response is that it's wrong because Penal Substitution Theory....

Those posts were about MY belief. They were not challenging your belief.

And they are accurate. And that is what I believe.

An honest discussion from you would not be "Penal Substitution Theory..." or "Scrioture doesn't support that" but instead "How does Scripture support that."

I am asking...pleading with you....to either have an honest conversation or withdraw. I am not interested in a "camp" war. I am interested in examining these views.

If it helps, just pretend you believe neither view and let's look at them.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Ah! Finally I see it. It's one of those five 'smiley' icons that are at the bottom of every post. I chose the one with the frowning face to register my daisagreement without getting into a discussion with you. :Rolleyes That didn't work, did it? The reason I do not like debating with you and avoid it whenever I can is that you do NOT discuss how the views differ. You have never, over ten years, properly defined your position, and when I gave a full presentation of my view you never addressed it in a meaningful way. You keep talking about a 'classic' view, which no one but you ever brings up and which you admit is not uniform. I want to hear your view because it would be with you I'm discussing
Therefore I really have no desire at all to debate with you. If I could put you on 'ignore' I would have done it ten years ago. However, the subject itself is of very great importance. If Christ has not taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, we shall have to pay for them ourselves.
Therefore, I will give below the portion of your post that I disagreed with. I am sorry that it came up as 'sad.' I did not mean it to, though false teaching does make me sad.

You will have to argue that out with God.
Let's get something clear straightaway. Sin is what sinners do, sinners are people who commit sins, and sinfulness is what causes people to commit sins. There are synonyms for sin such as 'ungodliness' and 'unrighteousness' and types of sin such as sexual immorality, covetousness, dishonesty, pride and so forth.
In both Testaments, God promises to punish people for their sins. In the O.T., the simplest place to look is Lev. 26:18, 21, 24, 28. In the N.T., in Romans 1:18 we learn that 'the wrath of God is poured out [present continuous tense] against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.' God cannot simply forgive sin and forget all about it because He is the righteous Judge. It must be atoned for by the one who committed it. 'The soul who sins shall die.' In the Law, unintentional sins could be atoned for (Numbers 15:27-28), but 'presumptuous' sins could not (vs. 30-31). In the New Covenant, the Lord Jesus Christ is the propitiation for all sins (Acts 13:38-39).
We read in Psalm 7:11 that 'God is angry with sinners every day,' and that He is just in being angry. He was angry when the Psalmist wrote the verse, and He is angry now because He doesn't change (Mal. 3:6). So how can God simply forgive sinners?
The only way is that God, before time began (Titus 1:2), set Christ forth as a 'propitiation' (Rom. 3:25) - a sacrifice that turns away anger or wrath. God is satisfied by the propitiation achieved by Christ. He really was pierced for our transgressions!
That is it! There is really nothing more to say. 'For God the just is satisfied to look on Him and pardon me!'
Lol.....yea... we need those old icons back (a thumbs down would have made more sense....and I miss the "poke in the eye" one).

I do understand that you view "sins" as what people do. That was one difference I was pointing out. I believe subs are more than actions (but this does, I admit, deoend on context).

First example, "when we sin" refers to actions. But "He was made sin" does not mean Christ was made an action.

That said, this is a major difference in our views. When I read your view I have to in the context that sins are things we do. And to understand my position you have to read mine in the context that sins are a deeper problem than what we do.

This is what I'm getting at. We have to evaluate one anothers view within its own context or we will never understand that position.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
[Part Four]
Next, we come to Galatians 3:10-13. God’s law pronounces a curse on law-breakers: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (v.10; c.f. Deuteronomy 27:26; James 2:10). We ourselves are cursed, for none of us have continued in God’s holy law. But, ‘Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law….’ How has He done that? ‘…..having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”’ (v.13; Deuteronomy 21:23). In God’s law it is written, so, as Luther says, ‘Christ hung on a tree; therefore Christ was accursed of God’ (Luther: Commentary on Galatians).
So what does it mean to be ‘accursed of God’? Let Paul answer first: ‘These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thessalonians 1:10). And then the Lord Jesus: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell” (Luke 12:4-5; c.f. Matthew 25:41). So what does hell feel like? Well, we may think of darkness, pain and, according to Paul, separation from the presence of God, save perhaps for His abiding wrath. We may add, perhaps, the mocking and abuse of others (c.f. Isaiah 14:10-11). All these things came upon the Christ. Of the pain it is hardly necessary to speak, save to note that it could not be diminished in any degree. Our Lord was offered wine mixed with myrrh, but He would not take it (Mark 15:23); it was an analgesic, but He must suffer the full agony of sin and the wrath of the Father against sin.

Of the darkness, we note that, ‘When the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour’ (Mark 15:33). By this time I suppose that the two thieves had fallen silent; the crowd had dispersed; even the Pharisees had got bored with mocking and gone home, and John had taken our Lord’s mother into his own house (John 19:27). The Lord Jesus hung alone—so utterly alone that about the ninth hour He cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Hitherto, He had enjoyed the closest imaginable relationship with the Father (Mark 1:11; 9:7; John 8:29; 16:32). Even in Gethsemane, when He was almost overcome with the prospect of the horror that was approaching Him, the Father sent an angel to strengthen Him (Luke 22:43). But now, on the cross, His greatest extremity He must endure alone. He was ‘made sin’ and the Father, whose eyes are too pure to look upon sin, turned away from Him. I know that some people find this hard to accept, but it must be true because the Holy Spirit has preserved His words for us. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning? O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent” (Psalm 22:1-2). Although it was 3 o’clock in the afternoon, it was the ‘night season’ for darkness had fallen upon the land, as if to hide the shame of the God-man made sin. For those hours, as a Man, He was quite literally God-forsaken.
But at the end of the ninth hour, the sun came out again. God’s outraged justice had been satisfied; propitiation had been made, save for the actual act of dismissing His spirit which followed almost at once. God could now be ‘just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus’ (Rom. 3:26). The way to heaven was now wide open, the veil was torn asunder, the one acceptable sacrifice for sin had been made.
One question remains to be answered: how could Christ’s suffering, which lasted just a few hours, pay an infinite price? How could an infinite punishment be borne in a finite time? The answer is that an ordinary person, even if their sacrifice were acceptable to God, which is isn’t, would indeed need to suffer for an infinite period. But the Lord Jesus Christ was not an ordinary person. Just as sin against God is especially heinous because of His infinite worth and goodness, so Christ’s propitiation is of infinite value in the eyes of the Father because of His own infinite worth. Therefore the sufferings of Christ were infinite in value because He is infinitely worthy. Scripture attests that ‘by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified’ (Hebrews 10:14). Finally, the Father’s satisfaction with Christ’s atonement is proved by the fact that He raised Him from the dead.
I have read your view before. I held (and taught, and it influenced my sermons on the Atonement) Penal Substitution Theory for decades. I do understand the theory.

And I appreciate you reposting on this thread. You state it well.

So if it's OK I'll just ask a few questions that I have about how you deal with a few issues.

I'll start with the reason Jesus had to die (physically).

It seems to me (and perhaps due to not fully understanding your belief) that your view does not require Jesus to die physically as long as what is suffered is the punishment of God for the sins laid upon Christ in our stead.

Since we die physically, I think it logical to conclude that Jesus did not physically die instead of us.


What role do you see Jesus' physical death playing in our redemption?


(@DaveXR650 is invited to answer as well).
 
Top