Featured Just how does the wrath of god be appeased if no penal Substitution?

The backbone of the latter verses of 2 Corinthians 5 is neither Isaiah 53 nor 49, but the question of reconciliation. The word, either in noun or verb form, is found four times in verses 18-20. Reconciliation here presupposes an alienation or separation between man and God. It is this that has to be dealt with.

Reconciliation usually requires a mediator; Job felt the need for such a one in Job 9:33. But part of the job of a mediator is to resolve the differences between the two parties. But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5). How is this done? Our Lord has willingly taken all the sins of His people upon Himself and paid the penalty in full.

The way to reconciliation is now open, so Paul's preaching is along those lines '.......As though God were pleading through us, we implore [you] on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.' The word 'you' is not found in any Greek manuscript SFAIK. This is a sample of Paul's teaching. Guilty sinners can now be reconciled to God. How? 'FOR He made Him who knew know sin to be sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' It is this act that has made this reconciliation possible.

When you say, "The righteousness of God refers to His covenant faithfulness," you offer no Scriptural justification of the statement. The righteousness of God, as Luther discovered, is the righteousness and obedience of Christ imputed to believers through His death (Romans 5:6, 19; 2 Peter 1:1). Theologians talk of our Lord's 'active' and 'passive' obedience, and that's not wrong, but in fact His life and death were all of a part; He was obedient unto death (Philippians 2:8).

'By His wounds we are healed.' We were dead in trespasses and sins; Christ made us alive (Ephesians 2:4-6). 'He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities.' He took the punishment that we deserved.

Coming to 1 Peter 2:19-25, as I wrote in post #115, certainly it was the sinful actions of men that brought Him to the cross, but they were fulfilling the purpose and good pleasure of God (Isaiah 53:10; Acts of the Apostles 4:28; cf. Genesis 50:20) and these were not sinful but righteous. In 1 Peter 2:23-24, we are told that the Lord Jesus 'committed Himself to Him who judges justly. He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree......' So we cannot say that God was unjust at the cross. Again, I'm reminded of Genesis 50:20. 'But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good.....'

Galatians 3:13. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us......' The Galatian churches were largely Gentile, and the major purpose of the letter was to encourage them not to espouse Jewish teachings. Therefore the suggestion that Paul had Israel in mind in this verse is silly. To be sure, through His union with the believer Christ suffers the curse along with His elect (Galatians 2:20), but not with Israel after the flesh. And I've already covered the question of the justice or otherwise of Christ's sufferings.

 

Utter nonsense, no verse or passage even remotely supports false doctrine such as Calvinism's TULI

 

You referenced the tram line in Poland, but I said PSA is a Trojan Horse for the bogus doctrine of Limited Atonement. So in response, you one again post another bogus claim.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response. I apologize for any formatting confusion. I have not totally figured out how the forum's quotation system works.

You say: "The backbone of the latter verses of 2 Corinthians 5 is neither Isaiah 53 nor 49, but the question of reconciliation. The word, either in noun or verb form, is found four times in verses 18-20. Reconciliation here presupposes an alienation or separation between man and God. It is this that has to be dealt with. Reconciliation usually requires a mediator; Job felt the need for such a one in Job 9:33. But part of the job of a mediator is to resolve the differences between the two parties. But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5). How is this done? Our Lord has willingly taken all the sins of His people upon Himself and paid the penalty in full.

But where you are confused, like John Stott and other penalty substitution advocates, is in your equation of payment and punishment. Paul is not saying that he is going to be punished instead of Onesimus. That would restore nothing to Philemon and therefore not be satisfactory. Punishment does not accomplish payment. Say Bill gouges out your eye. If Bill loses an eye as punishment, that does nothing to restore your lost eye. Restitution and retribution are separate priorities of justice in the Bible.

Jesus pays our debt of righteousness/obedience to God. He does not pay a debt of punishment, because there is no such thing as a debt of punishment. The Bible says the exact opposite, that the wages of sin is death. Wages and debts are opposites. See more on this in my post #131 on John Stott's awkward statement that Jesus "paid sins wages."

You say: The way to reconciliation is now open, so Paul's preaching is along those lines '.......As though God were pleading through us, we implore [you] on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.' The word 'you' is not found in any Greek manuscript SFAIK. This is a sample of Paul's teaching. Guilty sinners can now be reconciled to God. How? 'FOR He made Him who knew know sin to be sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' It is this act that has made this reconciliation possible. When you say, "The righteousness of God refers to His covenant faithfulness," you offer no Scriptural justification of the statement. The righteousness of God, as Luther discovered, is the righteousness and obedience of Christ imputed to believers through His death (Romans 5:6, 19; 2 Peter 1:1). Theologians talk of our Lord's 'active' and 'passive' obedience, and that's not wrong, but in fact His life and death were all of a part; He was obedient unto death (Philippians 2:8).

No, if Paul meant the the righteousness of Christ, he would have said, "righteousness of Christ" and not "the righteousness of God."

You say 'By His wounds we are healed.' We were dead in trespasses and sins; Christ made us alive (Ephesians 2:4-6). 'He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities.' He took the punishment that we deserved.

He took the punishment that we are suffering. Prior to being saved, we are children of wrath, dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2), since the fall of Adam, humanity is exiled from Paradise and the presence of God as punishment for our sin (Genesis 3). Jesus is not suffering the punishment instead of humanity so that humanity will not suffer it. Jesus is entering into our exile and suffering it unjustly. What we suffer as just punishment, Jesus suffers as unjust persecution.

You say: Coming to 1 Peter 2:19-25, as I wrote in post #115, certainly it was the sinful actions of men that brought Him to the cross, but they were fulfilling the purpose and good pleasure of God (Isaiah 53:10; Acts of the Apostles 4:28; cf. Genesis 50:20) and these were not sinful but righteous. In 1 Peter 2:23-24, we are told that the Lord Jesus 'committed Himself to Him who judges justly. He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree......' So we cannot say that God was unjust at the cross. Again, I'm reminded of Genesis 50:20. 'But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good.....'

Your quotation of Genesis 50:20 proves my point. Joseph's suffering was unjust! Yet God clearly ordained it for the salvation of many, without Himself being unjust. God's sovereign ordaining of unjust events is no danger to His own justice. The Joseph story is a perfect example of the narrative. Both Jesus and Joseph were unjustly persecuted and betrayed (the analogy even applies to the pieces of silver with which they were betrayed), yet God raised them up for the salvation of many. Joseph is not punished in anyone's place for their sins as their substitute.

And 1 Peter 2:18-25 so clearly describes' Jesus suffering on the cross as unjust. He is speaking to servants who are suffering unjustly, and he distinguishes between suffering that is deserved due to unrighteousness, and suffering that is undeserved due to righteousness, and he says this latter suffering finds grace with God. Then he says that Jesus himself is the example of this type of suffering.

You say: Galatians 3:13. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us......' The Galatian churches were largely Gentile, and the major purpose of the letter was to encourage them not to espouse Jewish teachings. Therefore the suggestion that Paul had Israel in mind in this verse is silly. To be sure, through His union with the believer Christ suffers the curse along with His elect (Galatians 2:20), but not with Israel after the flesh. And I've already covered the question of the justice or otherwise of Christ's sufferings.[/QUOTE]

You are losing the larger gospel framework here. Look at verse 8, in which Paul says that the "gospel" is God's promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through Abraham's seed (Israel). The problem is that Israel is under a curse (the exile to foreign powers, currently Rome) because they have been disobedient to God's law. As Daniel 9:11 says, "the curse along with the oath" has been poured out on Israel for their transgressions. So the question is, how is God going to fulfill his promises to bless all nations through Israel, when Israel is under a curse? It seems that the curse upon Israel is an insurmountable obstacle to God's blessing going forth from Israel to the nations.

The solution is that Jesus redeemed (paid the price to free from bondage) Israel, by fulfilling the righteous demands of the law perfectly, then suffering the curse of the law unjustly, so that justice would demand the reversal of the curse in his resurrection. So Jesus is the means by which God will bless all nations through Israel, for he is the true seed of Abraham. And Jesus' resurrection is the reversal of the curse not only of exile for Israel, but of the curse of death for all of humanity. Paul summarizes his gospel succinctly in Acts 13:30" "we preach to you the good news that God has fulfilled his promises to our children in that he raised up Jesus from the dead." The gospel is that God’s covenantal promises to restore the world from Adam’s curse (the subject of the Old Testament) are fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection (the subject of the New Testament).

 

Does God have eternal punishment towards those in hell?[/QUOTE]

I've affirmed hell multiple times in my conversations with you. Do you even read what I write?

 

yes, just trying to understand how one holds to eternal wrath/punishment of God towards sinners, and yet cannot accept that Jesus atoned by taking in their place what God had due for them?[/QUOTE]

Bob must pay $100,000 or go to prison. Mike pays $100,000 on Bob's behalf. Bob no longer has to go to prison. Your question is basically, "Well, who is going to prison then?" As far as Bob is concerned, no one. Mike paid Bob's debt.

 

Penal Substitution and the Justice and Truthfulness of God

I have brought this subject up several times before and no one seems to have commented on it, so perhaps it will be helpful if I quote from a recent book: Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach (IVP, 2007, page 138).

'Penal substitution upholds the truthfulness and justice of God: it is the means by which He saves people for relationship with Himself without going back on His word that sin has to be punished. In addition to the basic requirement that God should not be proved a liar, there are several reasons why this is important.
First, it preserves our understanding of God as a perfect being, all of whose attributes are in perfect harmony: love, goodness, justice, holiness, truthfulness and so on. It would be misleading to say something like, "At the cross, God's mercy triumphed over His justice." That would imply that a conflict existed between God's attributes, such that mercy "won" while His justice was frustrated. By contrast, penal substitution maintains God's mercy and His justice, His love and His truthfulness.. All are perfectly fulfilled at the cross. The writer of Psalm 85 expresses this beautifully, declaring that when God saves His people,

Love and faithfulness meet together;
Righteousness and mercy kiss each other (v.10)

In more technical terms, penal substitution preserves what is often called the doctrine of God's simplicity. This does not mean that God is easy to understand! It refers to the truth that He is not composed of different 'parts,' as though He could be dismantled somehow into separate components. We cannot speak of God's love as though it were a 'part' of God, separate from His holiness. rather, all God' attributes are in harmony with each other; His holiness is a loving holiness, a merciful holiness; His justice is a truthful justice, a holy justice, and so on. Within this framework, none of God's attributes should be regarded as more 'central' or 'essential' than any of the others.
Secondly, penal substitution preserves the truth that justice is firmly rooted in the character of God. Imagine if justice were not grounded in this way but could be set aside. What would God's new creation be like? Could there not be a Hitler, a Mao or a Stalin, unchanged and operating unpunished for eternity? It is hard to see why not. And if the life to come is not marked by righteousness, why bother striving for it now? What would be the point of working for personal holiness or social justice, if justice were to be abandoned at the Last day? Indeed, in such a world, it would be difficult even to know what justice is. The moral categories of good and evil, right and wrong would be redundant. Ironically, some recent critics of penal substitution have claimed it severs the link from the cross to social action. It should be clear that the very opposite is the case.

 

God's wrath was not poured out on His Son. It has yet to be poured out...

Romans 5
9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

1 Thessalonians 5
For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:10
and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead--Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

2 Thessalonians 1
5 All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

God's wrath is a future event. Christ suffered death to release us from the curse of death and the law. Jesus died to free us and is risen to bring us to life.

Psalms 22 Explains it well.

 

Thank you for your kind words, and no problem. I'm sure you'll sort out the 'quote' feature but in the meantime if you want to address someone, prefix the username with @ and he will receive an alert.

You seemed to be suggesting that Christ's suffering was unjust, and the analogy with Joseph was to show that although the suffering was unjust from the man-ward side, it was not so from God's side. We appear to be in agreement on that point, so there is no reason to pursue it further. If one presses analogies or typologies too far they always fail. I was not suggesting that Joseph is a case of penal substitution. But your argument seems to be that someone suffering unjustly can make atonement for sin. That is not either logical or Scriptural. In 1 Peter 1:18-18, Peter reminds us that we were '...redeemed.......with the precious blood of Christ,' not by the injustice of His suffering.

I agree with you, but that does not alter the case that in verse 23, God is described as 'the One who judges righteously' and Christ 'bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' That we should imitate His patient suffering is true, but that will not get us right with God, and if it could it would be salvation by works. What saves us is Christ satisfying the justice of God by bearing our sins on our behalf on the cross.

But Abraham's seed is not Israel - it is Christ (Galatians 3:16) and the nations will be blessed through Him (Galatians 3:28-29).

This is a whole new can of worms and I don't want to mess the thread up by discussing eschatology and dispensationalism with you. But I see no reason why Christ's sufferings should satisfy the justice of God simply because they were unjust. All that would do is to increase His righteous anger against the perpetrators. But it is actually God Himself who set forth Christ as a propitiation (Romans 3:25-26) - a sacrifice that turns away wrath. Our sins were laid upon His sinless shoulders, and He made satisfaction to God for them whilst upholding His righteous law (Romans 3:31).

 

God's wrath against sin was indeed poured out on Christ, and that is the reason why 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.' But to those who are outside of Christ, there is certainly a coming wrath.

 

Asked and answered many times. Did Jesus die for all mankind? What does scripture say? 1 John 2:2

 

The bogus doctrines of Calvinism are not found in scripture. Note no verse is cited to support limited atonement, since scripture says Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all and Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.