Featured Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

I have witnessed PSA presented in such a way as to validate the objection of Socinus (i.e., "divine justice demands that..." or "God first had to..."). If God had to receive payment in full in order to forgive or risk violating His own sense of "justice", then that is not forgiveness. The fallacy of that method of argument is that PSA itself is misrepresented by such wording.

God is not a slave to His nature, but instead is revealed by that nature. God's "justice" did not have to be met, nor did God have to receive payment in full in order to forgive (that would not be "forgiveness"). God Himself taking our sins and purchasing us with his own blood is not merely paving the way so that He can forgive us. It is the basis of forgiveness itself (we were purchased with a price). It goes back to that multifaceted gem. God's redemptive plan was in such as way so that He is both just and the justifier of those who are saved.

 

We are to forgive because we have been forgiven. If I demand payment of a debt in full before I will or can forgive that debt, then this does not meet the definition of forgiveness. If, however, I take the consequences of that debt upon myself then the debt is paid and I have forgiven the debtor based upon that payment.

I do not believe God satisfied the demands of justice so that He could forgive us. Instead God purchased us with His own blood in a manner that He is both just and the justifier of sinners.

 

But by God's grace we get to follow them.

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (Eph. 4:22)

 

No, a distinction with an eternal difference.

 

Nope...a more than normal (a biblical) view of forgiveness Laugh.

But yes, redemption not only glorifies God in His mercy but also in His justice. That's why I said He is both just and justifier.

 

I was referring to Eph. 4:22, not that the scope and nature of God's forgiveness is like ours but that forgiveness is forgiveness (Paul was not making a connection that was not really there).

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you (Eph. 4:22). In Matthew 6:12 Jesus makes the same association ("forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors). Another that comes to mind is Colossians 3:13 - "just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you."

 

I don't know if you are questioning me or making a point. There have been several threads on this topic lately, but as of yet no one has denied penal substitution.

 

I disagree. Here's why.

First, regarding NT Wright. Wright disagrees on the meaning of Justification (and righteousness). But his understanding of that term does not equate to denying penal substitution. Wright is Reformed in belief, and as he has stated repeatedly, he tends to view things through a Christus Victor perspective but he also affirms penal substitution atonement.

Second, the difference in other theories is not necessarily a denial of Penal substitution. In fact, it is rarely a denial of Penal substitution. We need to examine the beliefs of others more carefully than you have chosen to in your post. Those Anabaptists I mentioned did not "downplay the merits of Christ alone to save us". Quite frankly, while I disagree with their conclusions, your reply seems more esprit de corps confusion than biblical correction.

Lastly, we cannot choose how we want to view the Cross. It is wrong to insist that one view is primary. Context dictates the focus of any discussion of the cross. Sometimes Paul focuses on substitution, sometimes victory, and sometimes reconciliation. Never being able to see anything but Penal substitution is just as much error as never seeing Penal substitution.