Romans 3:21-26 doesn't support penal substitution

Arthur King said:

Again, it makes no sense to have these verses in mind and then think that there is some major problem of God appearing negligent in punishing sin.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that I think that God is negligent in punishing sin? I think no such thing.

Punishment has a purpose. But it is not to make restitution. Punishment does not accomplish payment for an offense.

Click to expand...

I did not say it did. I think you may be reading my post in a strange way. What I spoke of was justice. The punishment of sins establishes justice. There are other reasons to be sure, but that was the one I wrote of and I don't see where you mentioned it.

I do not know how many times I need to say this, but wages are earned, not paid. Have you ever had a job?

Click to expand...

I don't know how many times I need to quote Scripture to you, but 'the wages of sin is death.' That is the wages that your sins and mine have earned, and unless the Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and received the wages that they pay, we shall have to do so ourselves.

Arthur King said:

As far as my school of thought, here are major theologians throughout history who describe the atoning work of Christ in ways I agree with. Notice how they formulate the atonement mechanism around the injustice of Jesus' death:

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting those. I would just note that like you said, some of the guys you posted were advocates of penal substitution. And I find it fascinating the cosmic emphasis the early church fathers took on the atonement. But I would say that nothing explains the problem of our personal sin against God like penal substitution and nothing explains all the aspects of God's nature as we know it working at the same time as well as penal substitution. The injustice of Jesus' death is true on it's face in that Jesus was not guilty of anything before God or man. But given his qualifications both as being sinless and being fully human and also God and the fact that this plan was a work of the Triune Godhead and therefore it was the result of Jesus' volunteering for this and devising this - in that sense it was not unjust. So you have to be careful of the viewpoint being expressed as to the injustice of this.

The idea of looking at all the different aspects of the atonement is good and those who advocate penal substitution do this too. The Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon archive lists multiple sermons on different aspects of the atonement. This one:
The Necessity of the Atonement - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones
is a particularly good defense for penal substitution if anyone is interested.

I am still looking to answer a couple of questions I have not been able to answer. What denomination is denying penal substitution as being important in our salvation. I am not a theologian, as most people have noticed, and I want to see what the practical real-world results of a specific teaching leads to. I have not gotten an answer to this. And secondly, to those who directly tie in the resurrection to our salvation - are they saying that the death of Christ was also essential in the removal of our sin and so was the resurrection or are they saying that Jesus death was actually unjust all around and actually a mistake - and the resurrection is the actual cause of our salvation? I want to be careful that I say this reverently but what I mean is, are they saying that Christ's death is only valuable in that it logically makes it possible to have a resurrection.

DaveXR650 said:

Thanks for posting those. I would just note that like you said, some of the guys you posted were advocates of penal substitution. And I find it fascinating the cosmic emphasis the early church fathers took on the atonement. But I would say that nothing explains the problem of our personal sin against God like penal substitution and nothing explains all the aspects of God's nature as we know it working at the same time as well as penal substitution. The injustice of Jesus' death is true on it's face in that Jesus was not guilty of anything before God or man. But given his qualifications both as being sinless and being fully human and also God and the fact that this plan was a work of the Triune Godhead and therefore it was the result of Jesus' volunteering for this and devising this - in that sense it was not unjust. So you have to be careful of the viewpoint being expressed as to the injustice of this.

The idea of looking at all the different aspects of the atonement is good and those who advocate penal substitution do this too. The Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon archive lists multiple sermons on different aspects of the atonement. This one:
The Necessity of the Atonement - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones
is a particularly good defense for penal substitution if anyone is interested.

I am still looking to answer a couple of questions I have not been able to answer. What denomination is denying penal substitution as being important in our salvation. I am not a theologian, as most people have noticed, and I want to see what the practical real-world results of a specific teaching leads to. I have not gotten an answer to this. And secondly, to those who directly tie in the resurrection to our salvation - are they saying that the death of Christ was also essential in the removal of our sin and so was the resurrection or are they saying that Jesus death was actually unjust all around and actually a mistake - and the resurrection is the actual cause of our salvation? I want to be careful that I say this reverently but what I mean is, are they saying that Christ's death is only valuable in that it logically makes it possible to have a resurrection.

Click to expand...

I have noticed - and wonder if you agree - that a major difference between the Early Church and the Presbyterian Reformers was in how they identified the actual human problem.

Traditional Christianity (pre-16th century) seem to have acknowledged the danger of sin in the life of the believer and the importance of divine forgiveness. But their focus in reconciliation was not on sin but on the Person of Christ - the hope being the Resurrection, on Christ freeing us from bondage (enslavement to sin, death, and the powers of the World - Satan). Sin was, to them, a more pervasive "thing", more than sinful actions, and producing death as it's wage.

Looking at post 16th Century writings (especially Presbyterian/ Puritan writings) the focus is on man's sins. The main point being Christ paying the debt of sin we owed. Sinful actions were viewed as primarily something that demanded divine punishment with the wages of sin being the response from God.

Where one ends is often dependent on where one start.

JonC said:

I have noticed - and wonder if you agree - that a major difference between the Early Church and the Presbyterian Reformers was in how they identified the actual human problem.

Click to expand...

I know for sure they were more aware of the cosmic aspect of the battle between God and Satan, for sure in comparison to us nowadays. But even there, the old fundamentalist churches I used to go to with their emphasis on prophesy and end times were very interested in this aspect.

I have part of the Didache, and have read some of "The Confessions" by Augustine and both of those works were very focused on the individuals life and practice before God in my view. Augustine even did some psychological navel gazing like we see nowadays but the Didache is more like a paraphrasing of the ethical teachings of Jesus, almost word for word. But I don't know enough about the writings of the early church fathers to say more than that.

DaveXR650 said:

Thanks for posting those. I would just note that like you said, some of the guys you posted were advocates of penal substitution. And I find it fascinating the cosmic emphasis the early church fathers took on the atonement. But I would say that nothing explains the problem of our personal sin against God like penal substitution and nothing explains all the aspects of God's nature as we know it working at the same time as well as penal substitution. The injustice of Jesus' death is true on it's face in that Jesus was not guilty of anything before God or man. But given his qualifications both as being sinless and being fully human and also God and the fact that this plan was a work of the Triune Godhead and therefore it was the result of Jesus' volunteering for this and devising this - in that sense it was not unjust. So you have to be careful of the viewpoint being expressed as to the injustice of this.

The idea of looking at all the different aspects of the atonement is good and those who advocate penal substitution do this too. The Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon archive lists multiple sermons on different aspects of the atonement. This one:
The Necessity of the Atonement - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones
is a particularly good defense for penal substitution if anyone is interested.

I am still looking to answer a couple of questions I have not been able to answer. What denomination is denying penal substitution as being important in our salvation. I am not a theologian, as most people have noticed, and I want to see what the practical real-world results of a specific teaching leads to. I have not gotten an answer to this. And secondly, to those who directly tie in the resurrection to our salvation - are they saying that the death of Christ was also essential in the removal of our sin and so was the resurrection or are they saying that Jesus death was actually unjust all around and actually a mistake - and the resurrection is the actual cause of our salvation? I want to be careful that I say this reverently but what I mean is, are they saying that Christ's death is only valuable in that it logically makes it possible to have a resurrection.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughtful comments and questions.

"But given his qualifications both as being sinless and being fully human and also God and the fact that this plan was a work of the Triune Godhead and therefore it was the result of Jesus' volunteering for this and devising this - in that sense it was not unjust."

I am not finding in here any reasons why Jesus' death would not be unjust. Jesus being sinless and divine are the very reasons why his death was unjust. The plan of the Triune Godhead and Jesus' volunteering for it don't do anything to make it just. Jesus still does not deserve the cross, because like you said, he is innocent and divine.

"What denomination is denying penal substitution as being important in our salvation."

I think the most important theological errors today transcend denominations. The most important ideas that we need to get rid of are (1) penal substitution (2) divine command theory in favor of biblical natural law (3) philosophical nominalism in favor of biblical realism and (4) we need to ditch Calvinist election in favor of the biblical sovereignty of God. Ditching these ideas transcends denomination.

"I am not a theologian, as most people have noticed, and I want to see what the practical real-world results of a specific teaching leads to."

Penal substitution defines forgiveness as displaced punishment. This leads to forgiveness as sweeping things under the rug, or worse, displaced aggression. Forgiveness is the offer of restoration from a state of brokenness or deficiency.

I think penal substitution also relies on a faulty view of sin, in which sin is only a problem because God punishes it. This treats God as king but not Creator. A king punishes behavior he doesn't like. A creator says, "this is the way I have made you, to transgress it is to destroy yourself."

"to those who directly tie in the resurrection to our salvation - are they saying that the death of Christ was also essential in the removal of our sin and so was the resurrection"

Yes to this. No, the cross was not a mistake. The death is payment made (I pay you $1,000 to fix your car) and the resurrection is payment applied (you use the $1,000 to actually fix the car). Both are necessary to solve the problem (your broken car). Additionally, the death of Christ is where sin is condemned our flesh as we die with him (Rom 8:3) and our body of sin is done away with, so we who have died are free from sin (Romans 6:8) and the resurrection is the recreation of our body in sinlessness.

DaveXR650 said:

I know for sure they were more aware of the cosmic aspect of the battle between God and Satan, for sure in comparison to us nowadays. But even there, the old fundamentalist churches I used to go to with their emphasis on prophesy and end times were very interested in this aspect.

I have part of the Didache, and have read some of "The Confessions" by Augustine and both of those works were very focused on the individuals life and practice before God in my view. Augustine even did some psychological navel gazing like we see nowadays but the Didache is more like a paraphrasing of the ethical teachings of Jesus, almost word for word. But I don't know enough about the writings of the early church fathers to say more than that.

Click to expand...

The key question is this: is sin intrinsically self-destructive? The early church said yes: sin is a violation of the created order and is intrinsically destructive in the act itself. The Reformed church, at least many in it, say no. Sin is only a problem because God punishes in response to it.

This of course affects one's atonement theology. If sin is intrinsically destructive in the act itself, and God's wrath is not necessary to make it destructive and miserable for sinners, then wrath is not the central problem. You could take away wrath and humanity would still be in trouble. So you have to formulate the atonement logic around the actual, central problem humanity faces—which is not wrath.

DaveXR650 said:

I know for sure they were more aware of the cosmic aspect of the battle between God and Satan, for sure in comparison to us nowadays. But even there, the old fundamentalist churches I used to go to with their emphasis on prophesy and end times were very interested in this aspect.

I have part of the Didache, and have read some of "The Confessions" by Augustine and both of those works were very focused on the individuals life and practice before God in my view. Augustine even did some psychological navel gazing like we see nowadays but the Didache is more like a paraphrasing of the ethical teachings of Jesus, almost word for word. But I don't know enough about the writings of the early church fathers to say more than that.

Click to expand...

The first time I read Augustine I was surprised about his "Satan trap" idea. I don't know why. This was before I studied these topics (before seminary). I had just picked up some book....probably at a used bookstore (this was before Al Gore invented the internet). But you are right that they thought about God, and evil, differently than we commonly see in our contemporary world (except maybe in movies).

I think @Arthur King just hit the nail on the head with his last post. It seems that many Baptists today view the wages of sin as God's punishment on sin. But that is not how earlier Christians viewed it. Sin produces death, and we were in its grip.

Arthur King said:

The key question is this: is sin intrinsically self-destructive? The early church said yes: sin is a violation of the created order and is intrinsically destructive in the act itself. The Reformed church, at least many in it, say no. Sin is only a problem because God punishes in response to it.

Click to expand...

The question is not what the early church said, nor what the Reformed churches taught or teach. The question is what the Bible teaches, and I notice that you haven't touched upon that.
What I notice is that the Bible teaches that every sin is a sin directly against God. Joseph asks in Genesis 39:9, "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" The sin in question was to commit adultery against his master, Potiphar, but Joseph rightly saw it as a sin against God.
David admits in Psalms 51:4, "Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight." His sin was adultery with Bathsheba and arranging the death of her husband Uriah; yet David saw it as a sin only against God, and since the Holy Spirit has seen fit to include the words in the Bible, that must be the case.
But the Christian, contrary to what you suggest, is not only, or even chiefly, concerned about punishment, but far more is concerned that He has betrayed the One he loves and who has paid such a vast price to save him. That, I suggest, is the teaching of the Bible and of the Reformed churches

JonC said:

The first time I read Augustine I was surprised about his "Satan trap" idea. I don't know why. This was before I studied these topics (before seminary). I had just picked up some book....probably at a used bookstore (this was before Al Gore invented the internet). But you are right that they thought about God, and evil, differently than we commonly see in our contemporary world (except maybe in movies).

I think @Arthur King just hit the nail on the head with his last post. It seems that many Baptists today view the wages of sin as God's punishment on sin. But that is not how earlier Christians viewed it. Sin produces death, and we were in its grip.

Click to expand...

This is why the realism vs nominalism discussion is so important. Nominalism (in name only) is essentially the denial of Genesis 1. It is a denial that God ordered the universe a certain way and SAW that it was good. The goodness was IN the thing he created—in the order. It was a real (realism) objective order, in the creation.

Nominalism says "no, what is good is not what God sees in his own created order, but what God SAYS (or names, hence nominalism)." According to nominalism, something is good or evil just because God says it is and has promised to reward or punish it - regardless of how he created the world, the world might as well still be chaos. This gives rise to divine command theory - something is wrong because God says it is wrong and has promised to punish it. But this loses any sense of God as a creator who has made the world a certain way, and made us in it, and wants us to flourish according the the design he made us with.

Martin Marprelate said:

The question is not what the early church said, nor what the Reformed churches taught or teach. The question is what the Bible teaches, and I notice that you haven't touched upon that.
What I notice is that the Bible teaches that every sin is a sin directly against God. Joseph asks in Genesis 39:9, "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" The sin in question was to commit adultery against his master, Potiphar, but Joseph rightly saw it as a sin against God.
David admits in Psalms 51:4, "Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight." His sin was adultery with Bathsheba and arranging the death of her husband Uriah; yet David saw it as a sin only against God, and since the Holy Spirit has seen fit to include the words in the Bible, that must be the case.
But the Christian, contrary to what you suggest, is not only, or even chiefly, concerned about punishment, but far more is concerned that He has betrayed the One he loves and who has paid such a vast price to save him. That, I suggest, is the teaching of the Bible and of the Reformed churches

Click to expand...

"What I notice is that the Bible teaches that every sin is a sin directly against God."

Truth! But as creatures, we are designed to love God with everything that we are. To rebel against God is therefore to rebel against our own design, to "forsake the fountain of living waters" (Jeremiah 2:13), necessarily resulting in self destruction, independent from and prior to any penal action on God's part. Do you not agree? Do you not agree that sin and God are that serious?

If God never lifted a finger to punish sin, would sin itself still plunge sinners into destruction and misery? Yes or no?

Arthur King said:

This is why the realism vs nominalism discussion is so important. Nominalism (in name only) is essentially the denial of Genesis 1. It is a denial that God ordered the universe a certain way and SAW that it was good. The goodness was IN the thing he created—in the order. It was a real (realism) objective order, in the creation.

Nominalism says "no, what is good is not what God sees in his own created order, but what God SAYS (or names, hence nominalism)." According to nominalism, something is good or evil just because God says it is and has promised to reward or punish it - regardless of how he created the world, the world might as well still be chaos. This gives rise to divine command theory - something is wrong because God says it is wrong and has promised to punish it. But this loses any sense of God as a creator who has made the world a certain way, and made us in it, and wants us to flourish according the the design he made us with.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I quoted Lewis somewhere (can't remember which thread, but it was from "The Problem of Pain").

To enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being on earth; to enter hell is to be banished from humanity. What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not a man: it is 'remains.'

Sin makes us less human. Sin prevents man from being that initial good. And sin produces death. There is a sense whereby man (not God) has created our own death.

I guess I could explain it like a poison. We drink the poison. So why do so many of us consider our death a result of divine punishment rather than the result of us drinking the poison?

Arthur King said:

If God never lifted a finger to punish sin, would sin itself still plunge sinners into destruction and misery? Yes or no?

Click to expand...

This is a very earth-bound philosophy. Don't sin because it's bad for you.
My reason for trying not to sin is because I want to please God. The reason I want to please God is because He has forgiven me so much at such a great cost. I suggest a reading of Luke 7:36-50, especially verse 47.

Martin Marprelate said:

This is a very earth-bound philosophy. Don't sin because it's bad for you.
My reason for trying not to sin is because I want to please God. The reason I want to please God is because He has forgiven me so much at such a great cost. I suggest a reading of Luke 7:36-50, especially verse 47.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is what the Bible says (the wages of sin is death; For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace).

Martin Marprelate said:

This is a very earth-bound philosophy. Don't sin because it's bad for you.
My reason for trying not to sin is because I want to please God. The reason I want to please God is because He has forgiven me so much at such a great cost. I suggest a reading of Luke 7:36-50, especially verse 47.

Click to expand...

Alas, I received no answer to the question. Yes or no? What does the Bible teach? Is sin intrinsically destructive and harmful or is it not? Is sin a violation of God's created order or is it not? Are we designed to love God and enjoy him forever or are we not?

We can talk about motives later.

I do appreciate Arthur and Jon taking the time to answer me in all these posts. I understand that if you don't see penal substitution in Romans 3 you aren't going to see it. Just a couple of points. When I was saying that Christ's death was unjust in a sense and just in a sense I meant only that because it was God's plan of redemption and in God's economy he demonstrated being just by punishing sin in his Son and yet still forgiving us - that maintained justice. Christ certainly was innocent and him being put to death was indeed the most unjust death in the history of man. Of course if you don't accept penal substitution you won't accept part one of that.

And I also reject the idea that our sin in in the most part important because it is harmful to us. I believe that nothing is more important than directly pursuing iniquity and lawlessness, whether it harms us or not - because it offends God. The fact that we end up servants of sin and in a kingdom we can't get out of ourselves is true but it was not lost on the Reformers or even any modern Baptist who has spent time working in a drop in center.

In looking at the early church I notice that there are different thought patterns in cultures and time periods and that is valid to look at. Just to mention it, I find a lot of modern "therapeutic" influences in Arthur's posts. The idea of sin mainly looked at as harming ourselves would be the first, but also the idea of wrath exhaustion via displacement and even to the point of "anger must be vented, or carried out". That doesn't make what was said untrue, but just keep in mind that the narrow spectrum of the understanding of a Reformer or a modern Baptist is not something you also would not be subject to. The same would go for the early churchmen. We live in a therapeutic society where everything is put in psychological or medical terms. I see no reason someone would not be influenced by that if we can be charged with being influenced by the Reformers.

DaveXR650 said:

I do appreciate Arthur and Jon taking the time to answer me in all these posts. I understand that if you don't see penal substitution in Romans 3 you aren't going to see it. Just a couple of points.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the conversation, and tone, that you have provided. This type of dialogue is the reason I joined the BB over two decades ago.

I want to make one point, though. I do understand how you see Penal Substitution in those passages. If I failed to mention before, I believed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement for most of my Christian life. While I insist it is not there, I do understand that you see it in those passages.

Anyway, I appreciate the conversation.

To not have to brooch the reality of a sinners' wicked ungodliness and vile, putrifying, wretched natural state of being an enemy of their Maker

that is eternally and absolutely offensive to the Just and Holy Righteous Almighty Creator God,

with their transgressions and iniquities, as filthy menstrual rags,

along with the reality in the realm of the Spirit, for the Perfect, Innocent, Virgin Born Godman to have had the necessity of the sins of sinful man to have been placed on Him, in their stead, which caused His death

is delightfully tasty to the appetite of natural man,

and by not having to bring up the subject of the dreadful, hopeless, Hellbound condition of a lost individual's soul,

or of the necessity for them to have a Suffering Saviour as their Surity before an Angry God Who hates sin, eliminates any need to support penal substitution.

It is called, "I hate the Gospel".

Plain and simple.

Hating the Gospel avoids having to tell anyone they are a "sinner", worthy of torment and suffering Eternally in the Lake of Fire,

or the Gospel that Jesus died, was buried, and on the third day rose again, as the Power of Eternal Life Over Death.

Opposition to the Eternal Bible Doctrine of penal substitution is the demonic sentiment of Anti-Missionary Heresy and the pure, bonafide, in-state hatred of the Gospel, which has plagued the Lord's people since the Garden of Eden and Jesus' churches, from day one, up through Darwinism, Campbellite-ism, with their substitute of physical water to wash away the superficial 'sins' of people, of a couple of hundred years ago, along with the Anti-Missionary hatred of the Gospel adapted by Hardshells.

Nothing new.

Show me a heresy and I'll show you their Hatred of God expressed by their Hatred of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The denial of Penal Substitutionary Vicarious and Efficacious suffering and death by Jesus Christ on the cross allows for an invitation to natural man that they simply accent to and acknowledge a mental consent to something named Jesus and that they Resurrected.

Easy Believism, or Decisionism, with their intellectual observation and purely religious reasoning by using a mind and brain effected by the Fall of Adam, are not however, the power of God unto Salvation.

They are demonic formulas for demonic deception that do not include the Word of God convicting a sinners' soul of their only prospect of Eternal ruin, apart from the Eternal Work of Jesus Christ Accomplished in His death, burial, and resurrection, or God Wrought Repentance of their infinitely personal sin, nor Saving Faith in THE GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST, as their SAVIOR from their PERSONAL SIN they have been Spiritually Convicted of, for which they, again, have been Granted Godly Repentance and Spiritually Saving Faith IN THE BLOOD of JESUS.

The GOSPEL is THE POWER OF GOD unto SALVATION.

Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation..."

And who is ashamed of the Gospel?

Those who demonstrate their Hatred of the Gospel, in opposing God and the Gospel of His Son, Jesus Christ.

DaveXR650 said:

I do appreciate Arthur and Jon taking the time to answer me in all these posts. I understand that if you don't see penal substitution in Romans 3 you aren't going to see it. Just a couple of points. When I was saying that Christ's death was unjust in a sense and just in a sense I meant only that because it was God's plan of redemption and in God's economy he demonstrated being just by punishing sin in his Son and yet still forgiving us - that maintained justice. Christ certainly was innocent and him being put to death was indeed the most unjust death in the history of man. Of course if you don't accept penal substitution you won't accept part one of that.

And I also reject the idea that our sin in in the most part important because it is harmful to us. I believe that nothing is more important than directly pursuing iniquity and lawlessness, whether it harms us or not - because it offends God. The fact that we end up servants of sin and in a kingdom we can't get out of ourselves is true but it was not lost on the Reformers or even any modern Baptist who has spent time working in a drop in center.

In looking at the early church I notice that there are different thought patterns in cultures and time periods and that is valid to look at. Just to mention it, I find a lot of modern "therapeutic" influences in Arthur's posts. The idea of sin mainly looked at as harming ourselves would be the first, but also the idea of wrath exhaustion via displacement and even to the point of "anger must be vented, or carried out". That doesn't make what was said untrue, but just keep in mind that the narrow spectrum of the understanding of a Reformer or a modern Baptist is not something you also would not be subject to. The same would go for the early churchmen. We live in a therapeutic society where everything is put in psychological or medical terms. I see no reason someone would not be influenced by that if we can be charged with being influenced by the Reformers.

Click to expand...

You said "And I also reject the idea that our sin in in the most part important because it is harmful to us. I believe that nothing is more important than directly pursuing iniquity and lawlessness, whether it harms us or not - because it offends God."

Yes, sin is always an offense against God. However, we must recognize that offense is different from damage. God is always the primary offended party, but sinners are primarily the damaged party. Humans cannot damage God by their sin. He’s God. It is not a high view of God that claims He is damaged by our sin. God is not harmed by our sin until He becomes incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, at which point he is most certainly harmed by our sin. In sum: there is Creator and Creation. Sin damages Creation; it does not damage Creator.

Consider this whimsical illustration: Let’s say Skinny Pete, out of envy for Body Builder Bill’s glorious physique, throws a punch into Bill’s rock-hard abs. Upon contact, the bones of Pete’s hand and forearm instantly shatter into hundreds of pieces. Who is the offended party? Bill. But who is the damaged party? Pete. The offense was only to the damage of the offender. This is what it is like when humans sin against God.

Arthur King said:

Yes, sin is always an offense against God. However, we must recognize that offense is different from damage. God is always the primary offended party, but sinners are primarily the damaged party.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. The book of Proverbs is mostly about the dangers of sin and folly. But Ecclesiastes and Job explore the fact that cheaters and evil people and fools sometimes do prosper, at least in this life. I still think that our main worry as people should be pleasing God and not offending him and that is sufficient motivation. In Hebrews in what people call the "hall of faith" there are a few people listed who suffered a lot of damage for following God. And it seems like in scripture the average church leader has a very short life span for a while there. I just think it's a weak approach to base coming to God on the fact that it is better for your life. It can be. I used to love listening to that radio program called "Unshackled", which was about common people who unruined their lives when they became believers. But depending upon where and when you live becoming a believer can just as well mean the opposite - as Apollyon warned Christian in Pilgrims Progress.

So Alan, I'm gonna jump out on a limb here and say that I take it you are for penal substitution?