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

[taisto]

Not at all. Scripture tells us that that the Serpent will crush the Seed of the woman on the heal and the Seed of the woman will crush the Serpent's head (Genesis 3:15).

I believe that the Serpent refers to Satan and the woman's Seed refers to Christ.

Christ submitted Himself to suffer. Those men who crucified Christ were not more powerful than Christ. The Serpent "crushing Him at the heel" does not make the Serpent more powerful either.

Your conclusion is not logical. The reason is twofold - first, Christ lay down His own life. Second, Christ was victorious (crushed the Serpent's head).

I believe you misquoted Genesis 3:15.
"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

The enmity is between the woman (the Israel of God) and Satan because the Promised One is coming through that line.
The Promised One crushed Satan's head and Satan, but the heel of the Promised One.
Note: John alludes to this in the Revelation when he talks about the woman and the dragon.

Jesus committed to the plan that He, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit made before the foundation of the world. God used Satan, just as He said.

In all of this, Jesus acts as our propitiatory substitute. It is right there is scripture when you read the Bible. If you cannot see it then there is nothing for us to say to each other. You will forever be dancing around the scriptures to avoid what is placed before you.

 

[taisto]

Love it. Payment (ransom) is not punishment though. Jesus pays our debt of obedience. He is not punished in our place.

So, Jesus could just as easily pulled out a debit card and drawn out the payment from his bank account rather than die like a condemned sinner since he didn't receive our punishment for our sins. Perfect, holy, Jesus did something He didn't have to do since there was no punishment involved.
This is the conclusion I take from your statement.

 

[Arthur King]

So, Jesus could just as easily pulled out a debit card and drawn out the payment from his bank account rather than die like a condemned sinner since he didn't receive our punishment for our sins. Perfect, holy, Jesus did something He didn't have to do since there was no punishment involved.
This is the conclusion I take from your statement.

Haha no, he did not have a debit card to a bank account of obedience.

To pay our debt of obedience, he had to suffer all of our disobedience. The cross is where he suffered all of our disobedience. All of our sins contributed to putting him to death. We tortured and killed him by our sins. "The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all" meaning, in the divine jurisdiction, God decreed that all of us by our sins would kill Jesus on the cross. My sins are a contribution and cooperation with the Romans and the Jews in killing Jesus.

He voluntarily suffered our disobedience out of his obedience to the father. The cross is a juxtaposition of my (our) disobedience with his obedience.

 

[JonC]

I believe you misquoted Genesis 3:15.
"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

The enmity is between the woman (the Israel of God) and Satan because the Promised One is coming through that line.
The Promised One crushed Satan's head and Satan, but the heel of the Promised One.
Note: John alludes to this in the Revelation when he talks about the woman and the dragon.

Jesus committed to the plan that He, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit made before the foundation of the world. God used Satan, just as He said.

In all of this, Jesus acts as our propitiatory substitute. It is right there is scripture when you read the Bible. If you cannot see it then there is nothing for us to say to each other. You will forever be dancing around the scriptures to avoid what is placed before you.

No. I did not misquote the passage. You may disagree with my interpretation, but it was referenced correctly.

The thing is I can, and do, understand where Penal Substitution Theory comes from and how the theory interprets Scripture. I held the theory most of my life.

If you can provide a passage I "dance around" then provide it. I take a literal approach to Scripture (which is why I cannot support the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

Here I dealt with two passages.

The first post I referenced:

Genesis 3:14–15 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Since you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall crush you on the head,
And you shall crush him on the heel.”

I have stated my view -

I believe that the Serpent is Satan and the Seed of the woman is Christ. God put enmity between man and the Serpent. This speaks ultimately to the "Son of Man" and Satan. The one who crushed Christ is Satan, the one who crushed Satan is Christ.

That is not dancing around the passage.

The second verse I referenced:

1 John 2:1–6 : My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin. If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The subject here is Christ. That the "whole world" refers to all mankind is made clear by the following verses as John speaks of those who have come to know Him and those who have not.



Now....which of those verses have I "danced around" and how?

Maybe I didn't answer your question, but if so it is because you failed to ask.

 

[DaveXR650]

To pay our debt of obedience, he had to suffer all of our disobedience. The cross is where he suffered all of our disobedience. All of our sins contributed to putting him to death. We tortured and killed him by our sins. "The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all" meaning, in the divine jurisdiction, God decreed that all of us by our sins would kill Jesus on the cross. My sins are a contribution and cooperation with the Romans and the Jews in killing Jesus.

He voluntarily suffered our disobedience out of his obedience to the father. The cross is a juxtaposition of my (our) disobedience with his obedience.

Good. You seem to be coming around. You have Jesus having to suffer to pay our debt. And our actual sins contributed to putting him to death. And this occurred because of God's decree in the divine jurisdiction. And our sins our a contribution and cooperation with the Romans and the Jews in killing Jesus - which we penal substitution advocates sing songs about almost every week, songs written by other penal substitution advocates.

 

[Arthur King]

Good. You seem to be coming around. You have Jesus having to suffer to pay our debt. And our actual sins contributed to putting him to death. And this occurred because of God's decree in the divine jurisdiction. And our sins our a contribution and cooperation with the Romans and the Jews in killing Jesus - which we penal substitution advocates sing songs about almost every week, songs written by other penal substitution advocates.

But none of that is distinctive to penal substitution, and in fact goes against the grain of penal substitution. Penal substitution has at least 2 central criteria that must be met:

1) Jesus dies justly/deservedly, that is, to satisfy the retributive demands of God's justice. To satisfy His wrath.

2) Jesus dies in our place as our substitute so we don't have to. Something is displaced upon him so that it does not fall on us.

If those two specific criteria are not met, then we are not yet talking about penal substitution.

And the Bible makes it clear that Jesus' death was (1) unjust and that (2) Jesus dies with us, not instead of us.

 

[DaveXR650]

) Jesus dies justly/deservedly, that is, to satisfy the retributive demands of God's justice. To satisfy His wrath.

Not at all. You deliberate try to put it in a way that slanders the mystery of how the Father and Son handled the idea of God's holiness and sense of justice (and wrath against sin) and turn it into something that sounds almost trivial. Be careful here. It was not deserved or just for Jesus at all.

2) Jesus dies in our place as our substitute so we don't have to. Something is displaced upon him so that it does not fall on us.

Yes. Scripture adequately shows that and you showed that in your earlier post.

"The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all" meaning, in the divine jurisdiction,

Could it be possible to conclude that the proper interpretation of this could be that "something is displaced upon him so that it does not fall on us"?
Look. If you or anyone who might stumble upon this is interested here is a pretty good link, not from someone I usually read, who seems to explain what is really going on here.
Baptist Catholicity and Penal Substitutionary Atonement — Center For Baptist Renewal
I think everyone has said all everyone on here knows to say at this point and I think we won't accomplish anything by continuing to restate our beliefs. This article just shows that others are doing it too. And the article they are refuting comes from sources, both their schools, and the website, that are questionable.

 

[37818]

Love it. Payment (ransom) is not punishment though. Jesus pays our debt of obedience. He is not punished in our place.

Ezekiel 18:4, ". . ..the soul that sinneth, it shall die. . . .
Romans 6:23, ". . . For the wages of sin is death; . . ."
Mark 10:45, ". . . to give his soul a ransom . . . ."
Isaiah 53:12, ". . . he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . .

 

[taisto]

No. I did not misquote the passage. You may disagree with my interpretation, but it was referenced correctly.

The thing is I can, and do, understand where Penal Substitution Theory comes from and how the theory interprets Scripture. I held the theory most of my life.

If you can provide a passage I "dance around" then provide it. I take a literal approach to Scripture (which is why I cannot support the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

Here I dealt with two passages.

The first post I referenced:

Genesis 3:14–15 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Since you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall crush you on the head,
And you shall crush him on the heel.”

I have stated my view -

I believe that the Serpent is Satan and the Seed of the woman is Christ. God put enmity between man and the Serpent. This speaks ultimately to the "Son of Man" and Satan. The one who crushed Christ is Satan, the one who crushed Satan is Christ.

That is not dancing around the passage.

The second verse I referenced:

1 John 2:1–6 : My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin. If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The subject here is Christ. That the "whole world" refers to all mankind is made clear by the following verses as John speaks of those who have come to know Him and those who have not.



Now....which of those verses have I "danced around" and how?

Maybe I didn't answer your question, but if so it is because you failed to ask.

You dance around both.
In Genesis 3, man is not mentioned. The enmity is between the Serpent (Satan) and the Woman (The Israel of God, The line of the Promised One). From the seed of the woman comes the Promised One (Jesus) who does bruise (strike) the head of Satan. Satan does not "crush" a heel. Satan bruises/strikes the heel. How would a serpent crush something? That's a poor translation you picked.

The passage shows you how Jesus takes the strike that you and I deserve. That's substitution.

You dance around 1 John 2 and the term "propitiation" which indicates Jesus received what we deserved and paid the price for our sins in full.
You claim universal propitiation and then you turn around and deny it since you deny that those who go to hell have had their sins paid for. You contradict yourself and it doesn't even bother you. Then you expect others to ignore your contradiction and keep telling us that substitution is not found in the scriptures despite the fact that it is expressed in both the verses you have chosen.

If you wish to hold to a contradiction that is your prerogative, but don't tell everyone else that they hold a view that isn't taught in scripture.

 

[taisto]

Haha no, he did not have a debit card to a bank account of obedience.

To pay our debt of obedience, he had to suffer all of our disobedience. The cross is where he suffered all of our disobedience. All of our sins contributed to putting him to death. We tortured and killed him by our sins. "The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all" meaning, in the divine jurisdiction, God decreed that all of us by our sins would kill Jesus on the cross. My sins are a contribution and cooperation with the Romans and the Jews in killing Jesus.

He voluntarily suffered our disobedience out of his obedience to the father. The cross is a juxtaposition of my (our) disobedience with his obedience.

See the bold. In your statement you show us that Jesus is our substitute.

 

[Arthur King]

See the bold. In your statement you show us that Jesus is our substitute.

All of humanity's disobedience is not something I deserve to suffer. I don't deserve for all humanity to put me to death. So I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Arthur King]

Ezekiel 18:4, ". . ..the soul that sinneth, it shall die. . . .
Romans 6:23, ". . . For the wages of sin is death; . . ."
Mark 10:45, ". . . to give his soul a ransom . . . ."
Isaiah 53:12, ". . . he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . .

Wages are not paid. Wages are received. Death is not something Jesus pays to God. Death is something Jesus suffers unjustly, for he suffers death as one who is sinless. Justice therefore requires that those "wages" be returned, that death be reversed, hence the resurrection.

 

[Arthur King]

Not at all. You deliberate try to put it in a way that slanders the mystery of how the Father and Son handled the idea of God's holiness and sense of justice (and wrath against sin) and turn it into something that sounds almost trivial. Be careful here. It was not deserved or just for Jesus at all.

Yes. Scripture adequately shows that and you showed that in your earlier post.

Could it be possible to conclude that the proper interpretation of this could be that "something is displaced upon him so that it does not fall on us"?
Look. If you or anyone who might stumble upon this is interested here is a pretty good link, not from someone I usually read, who seems to explain what is really going on here.
Baptist Catholicity and Penal Substitutionary Atonement — Center For Baptist Renewal
I think everyone has said all everyone on here knows to say at this point and I think we won't accomplish anything by continuing to restate our beliefs. This article just shows that others are doing it too. And the article they are refuting comes from sources, both their schools, and the website, that are questionable.

You deliberate try to put it in a way that slanders the mystery of how the Father and Son handled the idea of God's holiness and sense of justice (and wrath against sin) and turn it into something that sounds almost trivial. Be careful here. It was not deserved or just for Jesus at all.

I am using the exact words of penal substitution advocates themselves.

The very popular song In Christ Alone says "On that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.”

Penal substitution advocate Donald Macleod says “Christ’s death, despite its dark, horrific backdrop, was just, because it was the death of the voluntary, divine sin-bearer, whose sacrifice satisfied God that it was right for him to forgive the sins of the world" He says again that at the cross the “penalty was right” and that “it could only be right if it was deserved.”

The writers of Pierced for our Transgressions state that, “God acted justly in punishing him, for he saw him as guilty by virtue of his union with those whose sins he bore” and “Jesus is justly condemned by God for sins imputed to him.”

As popular theologian RC Sproul says:

My sin was placed upon him. And the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed him. It was as if there was a cry from heaven — excuse my language, but I can be no more accurate than to say — It was as if Jesus heard the words, ”God damn you.” Because that’s what it meant to be cursed. To be damned. To be under the anathema of the Father.

Could it be possible to conclude that the proper interpretation of this could be that "something is displaced upon him so that it does not fall on us"?

No. I do not deserve for all of humanity's sin to put me to death. That is not the punishment assigned to me.

Furthermore, Jesus still tells me to take up my cross and follow him. A substitute would not say that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Wages are not paid.

I think you will find they are. Ask anyone in business.

Wages are received.

If no one pays the wages they cannot be received QED.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am using the exact words of penal substitution advocates themselves.

Yes. But penal substitution advocates say a lot and are numerous. The words you use are sometimes the exact words of Socinus. He said a lot too. And so do you. It takes 5 minutes on the internet to find out that most people believe Sproul misspoke in his quote about Jesus hearing the words "God damn you", yet you try to make that into the official definition of penal substitution.

What penal substitution requires is this: Christ the sinless One took on Himself the penalty that should have been borne by man and others. That's from Ryrie's "Basic Theology". That's the simplest, briefest definition I can find. It's from a non-Calvinist, if that matters to anyone.

Penal Substitution Theory - the belief that in his death Christ suffered the penalty for our breaking of the law and died as a substitute in our place. (Penal, involving penalty or legal punishment.) From T.F. Torrance, "Atonement, The Person and Work of Christ. Torrance was modern, Barthinian, considered himself Calvinist but definitely not limited atonement.

I could go on but it's actually difficult to find brief, concise definitions. Edwards, Owen and other Puritans talk about it but those guys never heard of the word "concise". Even Billy Graham, in his book "Peace With God" takes a few pages to explain it. So I'm not going to define if for you here. The problem is that you can define "penal substitution" as a definition easily at the most basic level. But then guys like you come along and pick at various aspects that were not explained because they were not needed for the concise definition and pretend then that the "theory" is incomplete.

Here's what I mean. Because God is wrathful in regards to sin you come up with a false impression that takes away the fact that God devised the plan for our redemption and the motivation was love to us. The highest form of love was between the Father and the Son, which you falsely say is broken if penal substitution is true. (I admit, R.C. was not helpful with some of the things he said.)

Regarding God's wrath. It is mentioned multiple times in scripture. It flows from God's nature and is based on His sense of justice, which would be the right way of course. It is not like our wrath, which may be selfish, or arbitrary, or misplaced - but we can identify with the feeling somewhat so it was wisely revealed to us in scripture as an attribute of God.

Regarding God's justice. Jesus was unjustly executed. But it seemed right to God to have this happen. The unjust suffering of Jesus somehow satisfied the Father's sense of justice in making it consistent with His nature to forgive sinners like us, which in normal human interaction would appear wrong. To come along and snipe at this as some glaring inconsistency is ridiculous.

There is an interplay between all these things which we can't understand except to the extent they are revealed to us. We have sinned against God and ended up estranged from Him, unable to look upon Him without dying, unable to truly have close fellowship with Him and in some sense we ended up in Satan's kingdom. God, in His wisdom, has determined to use Jesus incarnation and crucifixion and resurrection as a means to solve all these problems at once. It seems that God could have simply destroyed Satan directly but that would not have helped us in our fallen state. But He is going to punish sin and He is going to destroy Satan and he is going to save people and He is going to do this while maintaining his own sense of justice and holiness. When you add it all together and try to give it a name, penal substitution seems like it works. To call it "theory" most likely borders on blasphemy. The penal substitution part is what you will end up with if you zero in on what this means directly to us as guilty sinners with no way back to God. That does not mean that Christ's death and resurrection did not do many other things like defeat Satan, undo Adams failure as our head, begin the renewal of creation, prove Christ as victor, serve as our example, prove God's love to us and so on. And zeroing in on us as individual sinners is not intended to diminish those other things as being unimportant. This is why looking at a historical figure or an Early Church Father and figuring that because in a certain writing they didn't go into one aspect but focused on another is so wrong if you are trying to disprove penal substitution.

 

[37818]

Wages are not paid.

So according to you, no one pays, the wages of sin in Romans 6:23, ". . . the wages of sin is death; . . ." Before I accepted Christ, I was told God did or He was not just. [1962]. Am I understanding you here?

 

[37818]

Wages are not paid. Wages are received. Death is not something Jesus pays to God. Death is something Jesus suffers unjustly, for he suffers death as one who is sinless. Justice therefore requires that those "wages" be returned, that death be reversed, hence the resurrection.

Your argument makes no Biblical sense. How was "all things were now accomplished" before His resurrection?

τετέλεσται "Paid in full."

 

[Piper]

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.

You will get nowhere with Jon. He is so dogmatic and stubborn that he will not listen to the scriptures on this topic. He thinks that we are all believing in a false gospel (HIS WORDS), when we hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (Which a majority of the people on this forum believe).

 

[taisto]

All of humanity's disobedience is not something I deserve to suffer. I don't deserve for all humanity to put me to death. So I don't know what you are talking about.

You have sinned. You deserve hell.
All humanity does not judge you. God judges you and finds you guilty of breaking His holy law. If you have no one who pays for your sin, you have no hope of heaven. If you have no sacrifice for your sin, you carry your own guilt and justly receive the punishment for your guilt. If you have no High Priest advocating for you before God, you have no hope.

If you don't know what I am talking about then I question if you have read your Bible.

 

[Arthur King]

I think you will find they are. Ask anyone in business.
If no one pays the wages they cannot be received QED.

Oh, so wages are something you have to pay to your employer? They are not earned or received from your employer? When I receive my paycheck with wages on it, that is money I owe, not money I receive?