Penal Substitution

I am not claiming that certain things are not the issue when it comes to theories of atonement. There are more issues than I have been addressing here. I also have not provided an explanation of my view of the atonement or even many arguments against PSA.

We are all different, and we think through things differently. PSA depends on a specific framework of justice (I believe you would agree here). My first step is to look at this framework and see if it is valid. Thus far, I have seen no evidence that it is. Historically it has not been the way Christians viewed the atonement, so I think it is a valid request that you provide a reason divine justice is retributive justice (why justice demands a payment for sins committed that can be separated or transferred to another who willingly bears the sin).

After this is proven through Scripture we can look at the many other issues.

 

Restorative justice looks at the person, the originator of the act. God is holy. Er was wicked and God slew him. The church is to remove the wicked man. God would be just had He chosen to destroy all humanity rather than save a people.

Retributive justice looks at the offense and penalty. Er does something wicked so someone must be punished for that wicked act. David commits murder but God forgives him and punishes Jesus for that sin. Or Er repents and does good in the sight of God but God slays him because justice demanded his wicked act be punished regardless of Er's state.

I believe you are misunderstanding restorative justice to have man rather than God in view (probably because PSA has man and man's sin rather than God in view). But in Genesis the family of Judah is restored in accord with God's will. NOT because someone committed an act that demanded God kill Er but because Er was wicked. It is restorative justice.

 

Ad hominem aside, you are right that @Martin Marprelate has done an outstanding job presenting PSA. I am sure we all appreciate the time he took to lay out the theory and his summary would serve well in explaining the theory to others.

I know what I am asking for, that the framework for PSA be proved via Scripture, is impossible because it is introduced into Scripture (which in and of itself doesn't make it wrong), so I don't want it to appear that I think Martin's summary deficient. I believe the theory flawed on several levels, but the summary here is excellent.

 

Are you serious? I ask you to show me where you get your definition of divine justice and you say something like this? More smoke, huh? And still no answer to the simple question I asked.

 

I don't know where you are getting those ideas, but you obviously do not understand what I believe. What I believe isn't the topic. I asked you a question and rather than answering this is your reply.

 

I meant it as an illustration and I also find it unsatisfactory - hence my request that you prove divine justice is of that type. Scripture simply does not provide the context of a divine justice that would consider just the act of punishing a righteous substitute in place of the guilty. Scripture is replete with passages stating such is indeed not only appalling but an abomination to God.

I will not amend the illustration because it is correct for its purpose in demonstrating that God's action against Er was indeed restorative (with God in view) rather than retributive (with Er's sins and punishment in view). But I will offer another example:

Retributive Justice would require that God punish sin - not necessarily the sinner if there is another who can and will take that punishment. PSA assumes such is just and declares that Christ atoned for the sins of the elect by suffering their punishment. Restorative Justice is quite different. It takes Scripture literally - Christ bore our sins, it was God's will to crush Him, but God was never wrathful towards Christ as He laid upon Him all that would be wrath towards us. There is a huge difference here and I am asking that you justify assuming retributive justice to be the context in which God operates.

 

If you do not understand that type of "restorative justice", then perhaps I can help a bit. This type of justice (in secular practice) does not necessarily have in focus what is best for the criminal. It does not eliminate punishment. In society it has in mind society itself. In terms of divine justice it has in mind the holiness, sovereignty, will and plan of God. God is not bound by the Law to inflict certain punishments, but rather to act justly given the circumstance. Under restorative justice when one truly repents God is faithful to forgive. Retributive Justice demands a punishment for a crime itself - an "eye for an eye". A man may truly repent but God will not forgive except that punishment be rendered (directed at the sin, not the sinner who committed the sin, if a substitute takes that punishment).

And yes, the goal is restorative. I think we agree on this. Scripture teaches that on the Cross God was reconciling the world to Himself, that it is by Christ's blood we are freed from the bondage of sin, etc. What Scripture itself seems not to teach, however, is that divine justice is also of the type PSA assumes.

I do not want to discuss the morality of retributive justice here (but it would be a good discussion). And I would love to discuss other aspects you have brought out regarding PSA, like the nature of forgiveness itself, but unfortunately these things go back to assuming a contextual framework that has yet been proven. I want you to provide via Scripture proof that divine justice in salvation is within it's framework so that we can move on and discuss PSA.

 

This is not the just being condemned for the unjust. In Scripture the one affects the many (for example, under the Law the sin of one High Priest is attributed to the nation as a whole. The sin of Achan was the sin of Achan's family as he represented the family unit, and until Israel dealt with the issue it as the sin of Israel - even though they were at first unaware he had taken the idols. BUT Israel was not judged for Egypt's sin. An Israelite outside of Achan's family was not judged individually for his sin.

Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. If you want to discuss Jesus suffering as the representative of mankind - the "last Adam" - then we can, I suppose. But I agree on this point as it is inherent in the words "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Most (if not all) theories of Atonement hold Christ as our representative. Perhaps the exception is with PSA as a quick reading shows its advocates clarify "representative" to mean "substitute" being punished with our punishment in our place.

PSA, however, is not the teaching that Christ is the representative of mankind, taking upon himself the judgment of mankind and being the last Adam. It insists that divine justice must be satisfied by the punishment of sin apart from the sinner receiving that punishment. This is my request, that you prove that point via Scripture.

 

Again, I don't care if it is a false dichotomy or if it is exactly what Scripture states. I am not arguing what I believe here but instead asking you to prove what you have assumed. That is the topic of this thread.

You say I do not understand the true nature of God's law (and I, of course, believe the same of you). So what? Are you going to continue insisting that I believe your commentary or are you going to provide a passage that states salvation is worked out within the contextual framework you presuppose upon Scripture?

 

Yes, Jesus suffered once for our sins - the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.... For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Jesus is the "Last Adam", and as I have stated over and over again, the atonement is substitutionary - the just for the unjust. Just as Adam represented mankind, so now Christ is the "last Adam". But this is not a righteousness under the Law but one apart from it. You still have not proved, via Scripture, your point.