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

[JonC]

I agree. Now, I'm not going to demand that you name this as I do but to me, there is no logical leap in saying that Jesus taking upon Himself the wages of sin for us is substitutionary in the sense that for me as an individual, he was taking upon Himself the wages of my sin too.

Now, like you said earlier, I don't believe either that Jesus was made literally evil, but what he took upon himself was the wages of sin and like you said "for us". In Acts 10:43 it is said that whoever believes in Him can have remission of sins. I think there are plenty of verses that tie in the believing in Jesus and getting sins remitted. Now, could he do this without the cross? We can again go to scripture and there are verses bringing out the connection between God's willing to be just in doing all this and it is explicitly stated in Romans 3:21-26 that this occurs because of the work of Jesus as a propitiation.

Personally, I think there is enough right there for the term penal substitution. If you are willing to let "propitiation" mean propitiation in the passage from Romans above the argument is over, in my opinion.

I just want to say that the scripture is there but it's there for each step. I think that is a perfectly legitimate method when forming a theological concept.

The reason there is not enough there for Penal Substitution is that the theory makes too many assumptions that are not in the Bible.

First, the wages of sin. Penal Substitution Theory assumed that this is God's wrath inflicted as punishment for sins and that this wrath was inflicted on Christ instead of us as a means to keep from punishing us (it is not true forgiveness, but a transference of punishment).

The wages of sin are the wages of sin (not of God). Sin produces death, plain and simple. The Judgment is a Christ-centered event (all judgment has been given to Him) when God's wrath is poured out on the wicked.

In the Bible these are two distinct things - the wages of sin (not of God) and the judgment of God.

The word "propitiation" means a sacrifice or offering by which one avoids wrath or some undesirable event.

 

[DaveXR650]

Uh...You did read my Original Post on which this thread is a reply...right?

Sorry. I forget who posted what.

”. Paul is not saying that our sin or guilt was imputed to Jesus, but that the sinless man Jesus was made into an outworking, demonstration, and manifestation of our sin.

I'm just trying to figure out who is where.

Are you saying that the work of Christ on our behalf was an outworking, demonstration and manifestation of our sin and that is the extent of what His death accomplishes at the atonement?

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.

My question regarding the above is how do you think we contributed to the death of God's Son? I agree we did, but I understand it as a penal substitution that satisfied God's justice and propitiated the wrath I had built up, not just as a member of the human race but as an individual sinner. But what do you say? You use a double standard here. You correctly say that Jesus didn't literally become sinful ( which I agree with), and refuse to accept "imputation" of sin, yet have no trouble making us all guilty of Christ's death - but how? We weren't there, so it must be by imputation. Peter preached that message to the people who were there but not to everyone, everywhere.

Then you say "On the cross, Jesus was made my sin". What gives? You deny imputation of sin, which would allow Jesus to suffer the guilt and penalty without actually being made sinful yet you turn around and say "Jesus was made my sin".

So what I was asking is what, in your own words does "Jesus was made my sin" mean. Was it any more than a demonstration?

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning:
This thread will be closed no sooner than:

0401 GMT (Sat) 1201 AM EDT (Sat) 0901 PDT (Fri)

This thread is closed