2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't support penal substitution (reposted)

[Arthur King]

The entire Bible supports Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

This is a good place to start:

5 Biblical Corrections to Penal Substitution

 

[Arthur King]

Exactly. It is the pinnacle verse.

Jesus died for us.

We were owed the wrath of God.

Jesus took it for us.

In our place, as our substitute.

There is no engagement with my arguments in the post here. You are just restating the verse.

Scripture gives a different narrative then what you have laid out here. See Eph 2:1-10.

The problem is we are dead in sin.
The solution is we are raised in Christ.

We are already under the wrath of God, indeed "children of wrath" born as exiles from Paradise and the Presence of God in a world under His judgments (Romans 8 - God subjected creation to futility). The wrath of God has ALREADY been revealed against all ungodliness (Romans 1). Your salvation hope is not avoiding God's wrath, for it is already upon you. Jesus cannot die in place of someone who is already dead. Jesus cannot suffer wrath as a substitute for someone who is already under His wrath.

Furthermore, you will physically die. That is a punishment for sin (Gen 3). If Jesus died instead of you in your place, you would not physically die.

No, Jesus says "take up your cross and follow me." We are to be crucified with Christ. A substitute does not say "follow me." Jesus does not die the death we avoid dying. Jesus dies the death we are called to die.

 

[DaveXR650]

But this is the genetic fallacy, right? You are trying to falsify a claim (penal substitution is wrong) by assuming a motive of the person that is making the claim (certain people don't like it because of reason XYZ).

I said penal substitution was not supported by 2 Corinthians 5:21 because of biblical and theological reasons. My motives are irrelevant to the reasoning provided and the truth of the claim. I think penal substitution has all sorts of harmful effects - but that is downstream from biblical and theological reasons for why it is unsupported in Scripture.

That was specifically to Jon. In the book by Torrance, he does not refute penal substitutionary atonement. But he does go into a long explanation of why it cannot be a "limited" or particular atonement as the Calvinists often insist on. It wasn't directed at anything you had posted and I didn't even mean to imply where Jon comes down on this - only to point out that that is a good way to refute Owen. Without that argument Owen flat out wins. It probably didn't belong in this thread and I apologize for getting off track.

In general the motivation of someone in a theological discussion is not a secondary issue. It is huge and when you are confronted with a theological argument, like someone refuting penal substitution, the very first and most important thing you need to do is find out where they are coming from and why. I don't see how you would not agree with that since many of the alternate theories on the atonement come from those who do not believe in a resurrection either.

 

[DaveXR650]

The cross is the greatest sin in human history, in which all sin against God and all sin against Man are inflicted upon the God-Man Jesus Christ. No sin that any of us has ever committed is greater than the sin we committed when we crucified Jesus. The worst aspect of any one of our sins is that it contributed to the death of God’s Son. No one can fully understand what sin is unless and until they look at what we did to Jesus on the cross. On the cross, Jesus was made my sin. He was made into a demonstration of every human’s sin. Why? So that through Jesus’ resurrection, God would show His faithfulness to his covenantal promises to restore the earth from sin’s destruction.

The only problem here is I see the idea of "Jesus was made my sin" and then "He was made into a demonstration of every human's sin". They are both true and the resurrection certainly proves God's faithfulness. But you are saying there that God in some way, with his Son, dealt with our sin. While it does demonstrate human sin, and it demonstrates God's feelings (wrath) about sin, there still is an aspect of a direct "something" that God and Jesus accomplished regarding our sin - as individuals. The idea that advocates of penal substitution play down the essential need of the resurrection is simply not true if you read them. And you also don't want to get "wrath" mixed up with pagan deities who need to be propitiated. Wrath is Biblical and in indicates God's righteous opinion of sin. He judged our sin on the cross. While we don't know exactly how, the many references to blood, and the tie ins with animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, the book of Hebrews, discussion of Jesus priestly office, Jesus references to his own blood and so on have lead men who want to systematize theology to state this as penal substitution. It is sound.

 

[Arthur King]

The only problem here is I see the idea of "Jesus was made my sin" and then "He was made into a demonstration of every human's sin". They are both true and the resurrection certainly proves God's faithfulness. But you are saying there that God in some way, with his Son, dealt with our sin. While it does demonstrate human sin, and it demonstrates God's feelings (wrath) about sin, there still is an aspect of a direct "something" that God and Jesus accomplished regarding our sin - as individuals. The idea that advocates of penal substitution play down the essential need of the resurrection is simply not true if you read them. And you also don't want to get "wrath" mixed up with pagan deities who need to be propitiated. Wrath is Biblical and in indicates God's righteous opinion of sin. He judged our sin on the cross. While we don't know exactly how, the many references to blood, and the tie ins with animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, the book of Hebrews, discussion of Jesus priestly office, Jesus references to his own blood and so on have lead men who want to systematize theology to state this as penal substitution. It is sound.

The only problem here is I see the idea of "Jesus was made my sin" and then "He was made into a demonstration of every human's sin".

If Jesus actually becomes sinful or guilty, that destroys the entire biblical atonement mechanism (and the Trinity). That is the problem with penal substitution.

But you are saying there that God in some way, with his Son, dealt with our sin. While it does demonstrate human sin, and it demonstrates God's feelings (wrath) about sin,

Every Christian believes that God dealt with our sin in some way on the cross.

The cross does not "demonstrate God's feelings (wrath) about sin." The cross epitomizes our sin. Period. The only way you could talk about the cross as God's wrath is if you consider God giving humans over to sin as His passive wrath.

there still is an aspect of a direct "something" that God and Jesus accomplished regarding our sin - as individuals.

Every Christian believes this. Penal substitution is far more specific.

The idea that advocates of penal substitution play down the essential need of the resurrection is simply not true if you read them.

I could give you examples of prominent PSA advocates attempting to share the gospel and completely omitting the resurrection altogether, due to an emphasis on PSA. Here is John Piper:

I am going to preach the gospel now.

God is a glorious, all-holy, all-righteous, all-just God, and he created us for his glory. All people have sinned by not living for the glory of God, but preferring other things over God, and thus dishonoring God. And we are by nature rebellious, and we cannot change ourselves without divine help. Therefore, we are all under the just and holy wrath of God. We will all perish eternally if we cannot be saved from his wrath.

But God, in his mercy, has sent his own Son into the world, Jesus Christ, to bear the sins and to endure the wrath for all those who believe on him. Faith alone unites us to Christ so that his death counts for us and his righteousness can be imputed to us. Everyone, therefore, no matter how terrible your background has been, no matter what your ethnicity is, or intelligence, or gender, or socio-economic status, or family background, everyone who believes, simply believes on Jesus — that is, receives him as Savior and Lord and Treasure — will be saved and have eternal life. So turn from your sins and give up all self-reliance and trust in Jesus.

End of gospel presentation.

And you also don't want to get "wrath" mixed up with pagan deities who need to be propitiated. Wrath is Biblical and in indicates God's righteous opinion of sin.

Yes.

He judged our sin on the cross.

See the logic of the penitent criminal on the cross in Luke 23:40. His logic is not “in my place condemned he stands.” His logic is “we are under the same sentence of condemnation, me justly, him unjustly.”

Jesus dies with us, only he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent party.

While we don't know exactly how, the many references to blood, and the tie ins with animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, the book of Hebrews, discussion of Jesus priestly office, Jesus references to his own blood and so on have lead men who want to systematize theology to state this as penal substitution.

None of these things support penal substitution. Two examples: notice how the writer of Hebrews says that the blood of the covenant "speaks better than that of Abel." Was Abel justly punished under the wrath of God? No. He was unjustly murdered by sinful Cain. His blood is not guilty blood shed by just punishment. It is innocent blood shed by unjust murder.

1 Peter says: "you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ."

Christ's blood is unblemished and spotless. It is innocent blood shed by unjust murder. It is not guilty blood shed by just/deserved punishment.

Blood shed by injustice cries out to God for the reversal of injustice - the reversal of death. Hence the resurrection.

 

[DaveXR650]

If Jesus actually becomes sinful or guilty, that destroys the entire biblical atonement mechanism (and the Trinity). That is the problem with penal substitution.

But if the guilt or sin is imputed to Christ then that is not the case. That's what I was saying earlier. You cannot refute the idea that sin is imputed and then turn around and refute the idea that Jesus truly became sinful. Those who believe in imputation do not believe Jesus was an actual sinner, that's why they say "imputation".

Every Christian believes that God dealt with our sin in some way on the cross.

If you mean a true Christian then yes, but this is the whole problem. Many of the modernists who deny penal substitution definitely to NOT believe that our sin was dealt with in some way on the cross. So when you deny penal substitution the question immediately comes up, "What exactly happened on the cross?." This is something you must answer even when you espouse good views of the atonement. Christ was victorious over the powers of darkness, he did defeat Satan's kingdom and lead people out of bondage like Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, he did redo the first Adam's fall and set things right. All the cosmic and general things that Christ is said to have done are true. But still, there is an aspect that is clearly taught in scripture - that Christ dealt with our sin on the cross. So then you get into paying a ransom or a substitutionary atonement. You can't escape from it.

See the logic of the penitent criminal on the cross in Luke 23:40. His logic is not “in my place condemned he stands.” His logic is “we are under the same sentence of condemnation, me justly, him unjustly.”

Jesus dies with us, only he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent party.

This is the subtle changing of things I find exasperating. What the thief on the cross said was true. He was not giving a theology lesson. And yes, the reason we say "buried with him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life" is because without that union with Christ none of this will help you. But if Jesus died as a perfectly innocent party - and it was necessary that he be perfectly innocent - because we then, in union with Christ and guilty, could die with him and be raised with him to walk in newness of life - then obviously what happened here was that somehow Christ's death as just was for us as unjust. You will always end up back at penal substitution. If you really look at this, and you insist on no substitution, then you destroy the necessary connection between Christ's sinlessness and our guilt. You seem to be deliberately trying to downplay that connection.

I haven't been able to figure out why this is attempted. Like I said before, the most innocent thing I can find is that it is an attempt to get around a definite atonement. But it is a fact that modernists have tried to do this in order to be able to retain Jesus's ethical teachings while not having to deal with the offense of the cross in polite, intellectual society.

 

[JonC]

I think what is really going on here is that there is the aspect that a lot of theologians don't like the idea of Jesus specifically dying and specifically suffering a certain amount of wrath for the individual sins of every individual or at least every elect individual, and then the subsequent conclusion that that is the sum total of what is involved in the possibility or of the certainty of our salvation. They feel it becomes too much of a commercial transaction, pulled apart from God's actual forgiveness of us based on the fact that he wants to.

Maybe there's a point there. I can certainly see the attractiveness of refuting this because it gives an opening to refute Owen in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" and thus the idea of limited atonement.

I disagree.

It does not matter what one likes or dislikes but what is stated in God's Word.

In principle I have no problem at all with Penal Substitution.

Penal Substitution is very simplistic, and it fits well within the Western concept of justice. It fits, at least superficially, within our idea of justice. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth becomes the retributive example of divine righteousness rather than a restraining OT device.

I guess you could say Penal Substitution "feels good". It appeals to the flesh. And it aids in the justification many Christians use when dealing with people who have wronged them or the community.

As an addition, Penal Substitution itself makes no demand of the Christian (the believer is a benefactor, and should follow Christ because of gratitude. But unlike "Classic Atonement", there is no demand that he must in order to be forgiven).

So no. Disagreeing with Penal Substitution has nothing to do with not liking the idea of Jesus specifically dying and specifically suffering a certain amount of wrath for the individual sins of every individual or at least every elect individual, and then the subsequent conclusion that that is the sum total of what is involved in the possibility or of the certainty of our salvation.

The problem is it is that it is not derived strictly from the Bible. The larger problem is that it replaces what the Bible does say about Christ ransoming man from the bondage of sin and death.

 

[DaveXR650]

I disagree.

It does not matter what one likes or dislikes but what is stated in God's Word.

Jon, honestly, of all the arguments people use that is the least compelling. This thread, which is a rehash of an identical thread, which is the 20th of many threads on the same subject begins with someone quoting scripture. Everyone is using scripture. We just don't agree on what it means.

As an addition, Penal Substitution itself makes no demand of the Christian (the believer is a benefactor, and should follow Christ because of gratitude. But unlike "Classic Atonement", there is no demand that he must in order to be forgiven).

There is is no demand made by penal substitution itself. By definition it's too specific and just doesn't cover that area. There are plenty of demands for one who has been saved. It's not the subject here but most of the older preachers understood this and preached that good works and love and all kinds of Christian virtues were essential for salvation if by essential you mean that they will be there or you are not a Christian. If you believe you are accomplishing your justification by those things then yes, you are off in a different direction from Protestant Christianity. In that sense they are not "causative" of your justification.

 

[JonC]

Jon, honestly, of all the arguments people use that is the least compelling. This thread, which is a rehash of an identical thread, which is the 20th of many threads on the same subject begins with someone quoting scripture. Everyone is using scripture. We just don't agree on what it means.

There is is no demand made by penal substitution itself. By definition it's too specific and just doesn't cover that area. There are plenty of demands for one who has been saved. It's not the subject here but most of the older preachers understood this and preached that good works and love and all kinds of Christian virtues were essential for salvation if by essential you mean that they will be there or you are not a Christian. If you believe you are accomplishing your justification by those things then yes, you are off in a different direction from Protestant Christianity. In that sense they are not "causative" of your justification.

I agree Penal Substitution theorists are using Scripture. I didn't mean to say otherwise. My point is, in fact, that they use Scripture. That is wrong. We need to read Scripture. We need to apply Scripture. Our idea of Atonement needs to be Scripture. We don't need to use Scripture to support our views but derive our views from Scripture. Penal Substitution doesn't, although they think otherwise.

I agree Penal Substitution does not make such demands. It is, in a way, a type of "easy believism". Forgiveness requires nothing of the Christian. No repentance. Not even belief. Those things may be important to penal substitution theorists, but as separate byproducts.

Scripture, on the other hand, sets such demands. Repentance is necessary for forgiveness. But this forgiveness is legitimate. God actually forgives sins in a way that is impossible under the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

[taisto]

I am pretty sure that all the penal substitution proponents read scripture and see God of heaven showing substitutionary atonement from Adam onward with the perfect substitute being Jesus. The application of scripture is quite clear, it is from scripture and it is substitutionary.

There is a new, emergent, movement that desires to tone down sin and make it less vile and repugnant to God so that the Old Testament becomes unnecessary as a school teacher in regard to substitutionary atonement.

If others desire to follow a path away from substitutionary atonement they can do so, but don't expect those who read scripture and apply it to follow down that emergent path, which inevitably leads to liberalism.

 

[JonC]

I am pretty sure that all the penal substitution proponents read scripture and see God of heaven showing substitutionary atonement from Adam onward with the perfect substitute being Jesus. The application of scripture is quite clear, it is from scripture and it is substitutionary.

There is a new, emergent, movement that desires to tone down sin and make it less vile and repugnant to God so that the Old Testament becomes unnecessary as a school teacher in regard to substitutionary atonement.

If others desire to follow a path away from substitutionary atonement they can do so, but don't expect those who read scripture and apply it to follow down that emergent path, which inevitably leads to liberalism.

I agree that there is a new emerging movement that tries to tone down sin, and even God's wrath against the wicked.

But the alternative is not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Classic Atonement does not tone down sin or God's wrath against the wicked.

You forget that Christians existed long before Penal Substitution was articulated.

They interpreted the Serpent in the Garden as Satan, who would bruise the heel of the Seed of the woman (who they viewed as Christ) with Christ crushing Satan's head. The "snake" strikes and delivers his venom, but the Seed of the woman has the ultimate victory.

So I agree with you that new and emerging theologies are dangerous. At the same time, you need to understand that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was once a new idea emerging within the Reformation.

The Classic View is much older than Penal Substitution. BUT antiquity does not mean correct. We have to rely on God's Word.

 

[DaveXR650]

I agree Penal Substitution does not make such demands. It is, in a way, a type of "easy believism". Forgiveness requires nothing of the Christian. No repentance. Not even belief. Those things may be important to penal substitution theorists, but as separate byproducts.

That's not correct. Penal substitution is very specific and thus does not include belief, repentance, good works and so on. It is separate for purposes of discussion and teaching. People who advocate penal substitution have different understandings of how belief and repentance come to a person in salvation but penal substitution, as a teaching in no way leads to or is a part of easy believism. You may not like the Protestant view of justification by faith alone. Some anabaptists didn't either, the Catholics didn't, and for a while Richard Baxter didn't either. Some even are of the opinion that Jonathan Edwards was less than perfectly sound on it. In practice, our human minds I imagine are full of different impressions and understandings that may come out as a little "off". Martyn Lloyd-Jones goes into that some regarding Wesley and Baxter.

 

[JonC]

That's not correct. Penal substitution is very specific and thus does not include belief, repentance, good works and so on. It is separate for purposes of discussion and teaching. People who advocate penal substitution have different understandings of how belief and repentance come to a person in salvation but penal substitution, as a teaching in no way leads to or is a part of easy believism. You may not like the Protestant view of justification by faith alone. Some anabaptists didn't either, the Catholics didn't, and for a while Richard Baxter didn't either. Some even are of the opinion that Jonathan Edwards was less than perfectly sound on it. In practice, our human minds I imagine are full of different impressions and understandings that may come out as a little "off". Martyn Lloyd-Jones goes into that some regarding Wesley and Baxter.

Uh....that is what I said (the first part).

But Penal Substitution is easy believism compared to traditional Christianity. The reason is Penal Substitution believes God cannot forgive sins but punished another person in the sinners place at the Cross.

In your opinion, what must you do for God to forgive your sins?

 

[DaveXR650]

Uh....that is what I said (the first part).

It doesn't include those things because the because it isn't about those things. If I explain to you how a transmission works you don't reply that my explanation fails to explain the way the engine works too. That's what I meant. Penal substitution is the very heart of what happened during the crucifixion of Christ - specifically in relation to the fact that we are individually sinners and scripture seems to indicate that is a problem. If the atonement doesn't deal with that in some way then either you are still in your sin or it never really mattered. The other aspects of the atonement do not deal with this area. It does not mean they aren't true but without penal substitution I don't think you can deal with that area - our guilt and our individual sin. If I said that a transmission is the only thing that matters in a car I would be wrong but if I talk only about the transmission when I'm explaining a transmission that should not be a problem.

When it comes to salvation the same thing occurs. What must I do for God to forgive my sins? In a sense, nothing. Is that easy believism? If you think that there is some merit that you can contribute that will sway God's opinion toward you then you don't get the gospel. But I have no problem saying you must believe in Christ, repent of the path you are currently on with the intention of now attempting to follow Christ. This is really part of your belief because you are realizing that the way you were going was not God's will and now you want to do God's will. But as you can see it also describes repentance.

What exactly do you think the Classical Christians believed about this? I know a lot of the ECF's believed baptism was essential. I know Augustine did. If you are trying to say that there are Christian virtues or Christian works that are necessary for justification you are wrong and the anabaptists who say that are wrong also. I don't get too upset with them on that because I believe that those things must be present to some degree in a person who lives on this earth for a time after becoming a Christian. You are saved by faith alone but that faith is never alone. Yet I fully understand the difficulties of the mental gyrations of someone trying to figure this out. We "what if" too much. Justification does not involve works on our part. But then don't turn around and then say it doesn't matter what I do now that I'm justified. And don't do that with penal substitution. The guys that argued penal substitution best were the same ones that said continuing to live in known sin was damnable.

 

[Revmitchell]

xxxxxxx

 

[Revmitchell]

Penal substitution advocates use 2 Corinthians 5:21, that “God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in HIm,” to support the concept of double imputation, that our sin was imputed to Jesus so that his righteousness could be imputed to us. They want the verse to say something like, “He made him who knew no sin to be sinful on our behalf so that we might receive the righteousness of Christ from him (modifications in italics),” but this is not what the text says.

NT Wright’s commentary on this verse is very helpful (I am not a person who always agrees with NT Wright, but here he is spot on). In the second part of the verse, the phrase “the righteousness of God” does not mean “the righteousness of Christ,” which would refer to the Messiah/Son’s legal status of righteousness. If Paul meant "righteousness of Christ" then he would have said that, as he does elsewhere in his letters. So any penal substitution advocate must answer the question of why Paul does not use the phrase "righteousness of Christ" here. If you can't answer that question, the charge sticks that you are simply putting words in Paul's mouth.

The “righteousness of God” refers to God’s covenant faithfulness to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring (Genesis 12). When Paul says, “we become the righteousness of God,” he is saying that the people of God, the Church in Christ, has become an outworking, demonstration, manifestation, and glory of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. Paul is not talking here about the imputation of Christ’s legal status of righteousness to us.

At its core this theory of the "righteousness of God" is weak at best and has no real support. It appears that you have relied on it simply because it came from a noted scholar like Wright and have little else to support it. Wright, in this quote, fails to support this theory. In James he addresses a list of sinful behavior and in doing so in 1:20 he speaks of the "righteousness of God". The context does not lend to this theory you have posted by Wright but clearly speaks to the purity and moral rightness of God's character of which we should work to emulate. In Romans 10:13 Paul speaks of those who "did not submit to God's righteousness". Again this is not talking about covenant faithfulness but the moral character of God.

Further, in 1 Corinthians 1:30 it says "And because of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption," clearly it says here that Jesus became these things which are directly attributed to God. 2 Corinthians 5:18 says that "All of this is from God" and then goes on to list what is from God; reconciliation, gave us the ministry of reconciliation.

"In Christ, God, was reconciling the world to Himself" v.19 The entire context is what God is doing for man through Christ. Hence we become the righteousness of God. It doesn't have to say the righteousness of Christ in order for imputation to be valid. God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are one God. Context is King and the context here is the work of God through Christ and in this case God the Father made God the Son to be sin or in other words to take on our guilt so that we take on the righteousness (moral character) of God. We must be careful with scripture and not work to isolate verses so as to fit our presuppositions.

 

[Van]

The entire Bible supports Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Depends on how one defines PSA.

If the definition is, Christ died for the specific sins of specific foreseen individuals, chosen individually before creation, and paid the penality that was or would be owned for those sins only, then PSA is not supported anywhere in scripture.

If, OTOH, the definition is Christ died to provide the opportunity for humanity's sins to be forgiven, as a substitutionary sacrifice, then Christ's provision for the means of reconciliation is supported by the entire Bible.

 

[taisto]

I agree that there is a new emerging movement that tries to tone down sin, and even God's wrath against the wicked.

But the alternative is not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Classic Atonement does not tone down sin or God's wrath against the wicked.

You forget that Christians existed long before Penal Substitution was articulated.

They interpreted the Serpent in the Garden as Satan, who would bruise the heel of the Seed of the woman (who they viewed as Christ) with Christ crushing Satan's head. The "snake" strikes and delivers his venom, but the Seed of the woman has the ultimate victory.

So I agree with you that new and emerging theologies are dangerous. At the same time, you need to understand that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was once a new idea emerging within the Reformation.

The Classic View is much older than Penal Substitution. BUT antiquity does not mean correct. We have to rely on God's Word.

It seems you're mainly looking to have a superiority complex by claiming a vague "Classic View" and then not clearly defining it.
The Bible always presents a substitute for the guilty sinner. God substitutes animal clothes for the naked sinners in the garden. God requires the Passover Lamb as a substitute for the death of a firstborn. God gives a substitute scapegoat for the sins of the people. God gives us Jesus, the Lamb of God, to substitute for our guilt, once and for all.
Nowhere in the Bible do we read of God forgiving sins without justice being required from a substitute payment for those sins.

Forgiveness is never given if justice is not met.
You seem to think the Bible tells you that forgiveness is given without any requirement of justice. That concept of forgiveness without justice is never expressed in the Bible.
Therefore, whatever "Classic View" you are pointing toward that doesn't require justice is really an emergent thought not expressed in the Bible.

I wonder why you are so adamant against a substitute for your sins when that is the clear teaching throughout the entire Bible. That is the "Classic View" which is substitutionary.

I understand that you will likely find a nit to pick, but I have made my point. I will back out of this seemingly silly thread.

 

[Arthur King]

But if the guilt or sin is imputed to Christ then that is not the case. That's what I was saying earlier. You cannot refute the idea that sin is imputed and then turn around and refute the idea that Jesus truly became sinful. Those who believe in imputation do not believe Jesus was an actual sinner, that's why they say "imputation".


If you mean a true Christian then yes, but this is the whole problem. Many of the modernists who deny penal substitution definitely to NOT believe that our sin was dealt with in some way on the cross. So when you deny penal substitution the question immediately comes up, "What exactly happened on the cross?." This is something you must answer even when you espouse good views of the atonement. Christ was victorious over the powers of darkness, he did defeat Satan's kingdom and lead people out of bondage like Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, he did redo the first Adam's fall and set things right. All the cosmic and general things that Christ is said to have done are true. But still, there is an aspect that is clearly taught in scripture - that Christ dealt with our sin on the cross. So then you get into paying a ransom or a substitutionary atonement. You can't escape from it.


This is the subtle changing of things I find exasperating. What the thief on the cross said was true. He was not giving a theology lesson. And yes, the reason we say "buried with him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life" is because without that union with Christ none of this will help you. But if Jesus died as a perfectly innocent party - and it was necessary that he be perfectly innocent - because we then, in union with Christ and guilty, could die with him and be raised with him to walk in newness of life - then obviously what happened here was that somehow Christ's death as just was for us as unjust. You will always end up back at penal substitution. If you really look at this, and you insist on no substitution, then you destroy the necessary connection between Christ's sinlessness and our guilt. You seem to be deliberately trying to downplay that connection.

I haven't been able to figure out why this is attempted. Like I said before, the most innocent thing I can find is that it is an attempt to get around a definite atonement. But it is a fact that modernists have tried to do this in order to be able to retain Jesus's ethical teachings while not having to deal with the offense of the cross in polite, intellectual society.

Those who believe in imputation do not believe Jesus was an actual sinner, that's why they say "imputation".

Not quite. This is actually something the penal substitution community debates about quite a bit, and there are a variety of views - because it is a real struggle to explain how Jesus could be legitimately guilty enough to absorb the wrath of God, yet legitimately innocent enough to not be a sinner, not to destroy the Trinity, and to accomplish all of the ritual functions which necessitate a sacrifice to be pure/unblemished/innocent. Just saying the magic word "imputation" does not solve the problem. It is a real problem for PSA (I would say contradiction) that on the cross, Jesus is both innocent and guilty at the same time, pure and sinful at the same time.

I would argue that the Bible never necessitates our guilt or sin be imputed to Jesus. That is not how the sacrificial system works.

So when you deny penal substitution the question immediately comes up, "What exactly happened on the cross?." This is something you must answer even when you espouse good views of the atonement.

We were drowning in a river due to our own sin (the river represents death). Jesus jumps into the river, grabs us, and pulls us out.

Penal substitution is if we have sinned and deserve to be drowned in the river by the justice system as a future punishment. Jesus volunteers to be drowned instead of us so we never touch the river.

That is the difference. The first case is a death and resurrection narrative - as taught in the Bible. The second is a substitutionary punishment narrative - which is not biblical.

Do you need the quotations again from Augustine to CS Lewis explaining the atonement from non-penal substitutionary terms?

He was not giving a theology lesson.

I could use this rationale to dismiss any verse I didn't want to support my position. "well THAT verse is not a theology lesson, so it doesn't count against me. But the verses I quote in favor of my view ARE theology lessons."

Luke the evangelist is definitely giving a theology lesson. The whole Bible is a theology lesson.

But if Jesus died as a perfectly innocent party - and it was necessary that he be perfectly innocent - because we then, in union with Christ and guilty, could die with him and be raised with him to walk in newness of life - then obviously what happened here was that somehow Christ's death as just was for us as unjust.

This is all correct! As long as "for us" does not mean "instead of," which it couldn't, because you said we died with Christ and rose with Christ. "with" excludes "instead of." I cannot go to the grocery store "with" and "instead of" my wife at the same time. I can certainly go to the store "with" and "for" my wife at the same time, as in "for my wife's sake," which is the sense of the biblical term "for" in "Christ died for us".

You will always end up back at penal substitution.

Huh??? Non sequitur here. What you previously described did not specify penal substitution in any way.

 

[Arthur King]

It seems you're mainly looking to have a superiority complex by claiming a vague "Classic View" and then not clearly defining it.
The Bible always presents a substitute for the guilty sinner. God substitutes animal clothes for the naked sinners in the garden. God requires the Passover Lamb as a substitute for the death of a firstborn. God gives a substitute scapegoat for the sins of the people. God gives us Jesus, the Lamb of God, to substitute for our guilt, once and for all.
Nowhere in the Bible do we read of God forgiving sins without justice being required from a substitute payment for those sins.

Forgiveness is never given if justice is not met.
You seem to think the Bible tells you that forgiveness is given without any requirement of justice. That concept of forgiveness without justice is never expressed in the Bible.
Therefore, whatever "Classic View" you are pointing toward that doesn't require justice is really an emergent thought not expressed in the Bible.

I wonder why you are so adamant against a substitute for your sins when that is the clear teaching throughout the entire Bible. That is the "Classic View" which is substitutionary.

I understand that you will likely find a nit to pick, but I have made my point. I will back out of this seemingly silly thread.

None of those verses you mentioned actually present substitution. But I will save responses to those for future posts, as I want to keep this discussion about 2 Corinthians 5:21.

God gives a substitute scapegoat for the sins of the people.

For example, the "goat for Azazel" (often mistranslated as "scapegoat") does not represent Christ. Christ is the other goat on whom the lot fell, which is slain and taken into the holy of holies.

The writer of Hebrews consistently associates Christ with this goat, and not the goat for Azazel.

And then he says, "So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach."

Jesus, as our sacrificial lamb, does not bear our reproach so we don't have to. We are called to bear His reproach, to take up our cross and follow him, to die with him, to drink the cup he drinks and be baptized with his baptism.

 

[DaveXR650]

We were drowning in a river due to our own sin (the river represents death). Jesus jumps into the river, grabs us, and pulls us out.

Penal substitution is if we have sinned and deserve to be drowned in the river by the justice system as a future punishment. Jesus volunteers to be drowned instead of us so we never touch the river.

That is crude and irreverent but it does show how with your explanation the death of Christ was unnecessary. The "justice system" you flippantly talk about is God's view of sin. There are big problems here and I would like to see a list of Baptist churches who officially hold to your theology on this. I am willing to bet that they have big problems in other areas too.