Penal Substitution Reprised

The idea that Scripture itself, and what the Bible says of Christ's suffering, is insufficient and needs expounding upon is appalling. Of course we can look at the Cross to see the horrible state if sinful man as they beat and tortured the One through whom they were created...the One God who sustains their very life.

But this is a far cry from saying an angry God was wrathful towards the righteous (which is an "abomination") by punishing his Son for the sins of others....which is your argument - that God viewed Jesus on the Cross as unrighteous and disobedient and punished Him for that evil which was ours. It is interesting, but only in a Dean Koontz kind of way.

 

Who h verse are you speaking of? Let's walk through it as friends.

 

No, actually that is a scriptural standard (I believe that Scripture itself is our standard, our authority for doctrine).

But even with the simple standard of the English language your argument fails. "For our sake he made him to be sin" does not state "an angry God wrathfully punished His Son for the sins of others". I know you probably see that implied around every corner, but I assure you it is very much absent from Scripture itself.

Even if we were to equate what one believes to be implied as if it were actually Scripture itself we would run into an issue. You see, there exist passages (not what you think implied but actual text) that state God does not condemn the righteous, does is not wrathful to the just, looks upon His Son as obedient rather than disobedient, etc. So we have to decide what gets more weight - what God implied or what God actually said.

Yea.....right.

 

Sounds good to me, brother. A wonderful passage: 1 Peter 3:17-18 For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

So here Peter tells us what?

He tells us not to be troubled by those who intend to harm us, for it is better that we should suffer, if God wills it, for doing what is right than what is wrong. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh. Christ suffered for doing what was right, for obeying God’s will. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

Think about it. Christ died for sins once for all. The just for the unjust. So that He might bring us to God. Having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

Now, what you are telling me is that this states that God poured out His wrath on His Son for our sins. You are saying this verse portrays a God that is vengeful towards sin and at the Cross punished the Just (Jesus) for the unjust.

But where is that in the passage? The fact is it is not. It is what you read into the passage.

The passage says the Just for the unjust – but it does not say that God punished the Just for the unjust. In fact, this verse is linked to the previous verse. Do not be troubled by those unjust people (the world) who intend to harm us. For it is better that we should suffer, if it is God’s will, for doing right rather than doing wrong. In Acts Peter frames it this way – Christ died by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, but by the hands of godless men who caused him to suffer and nailed Him to the cross. The Just suffering at the hands of the unjust by the will of God to save the unjust.

Not only that, but nowhere is God presented as being vengeful towards Christ. Scripture does say that it was God’s will His Messiah suffer, but “at the hands of godless men”.

This passage leaves much to be desired by way of proving PSA.

 

Only if you can't read. Count the words if you don't believe me.

Oh, I know the context you assume for the passage. And I agree that in order to see those ideas between the lines of Scripture one must supply a context not present in the passage itself.

 

Then that is a problem of reading comprehension verses reading through the lenses of our own presuppositions. Quite literally what you are claiming to be stated in those verses are in fact not. Let's look at them:

1Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God,...

Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

1Pe 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

None of these passages state God as being wrathful at Jesus.
None of these passages state God as pouring His wrath upon Jesus on the cross.

What do they say?

1. Christ suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God.
2. We were dead in our sins. God made us alive together with Him, having forgiven us.
3. Canceling the record of debt that stood against us Christ nailed the Law to the cross.
4. Christ bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.
5. By His wounds we are healed.

The only thing that says God was wrathful towards His Son as His Son took upon Himself the wages of sin in His own flesh is man's theory.

 

Sometimes we are just blinded by our own theories. That's what I mean when I say I'm not anti-PSA. I believe it is wrong, but the main issue is that people too often seem unable to see where Scripture ends and their understanding begins. And you are right, it is an issue of literacy - or at least of being able to think critically.

I enjoy this topic, and I enjoy discussing it with people who believe differently. Unfortunately the BB is not that enjoyable because here people seem unable to distinguish between what they hear and what is said. There are many places where I can say "I believe this because of these passages", but I know this is my understanding based on Scripture and not Scripture itself. It is in those areas of interpretation where "iron sharpens iron". But this can never occur when leaning on one's own understanding. We have to learn to at least identify, as best we can, what is written and what we carry into what is written.

If you don't mind, I'd recommend "Grasping God's Word" by Duvall and Hays. One thing that we have neglected (my generation, and perhaps the one before) is teaching people how to read in general. We seem too preoccupied with indoctrination (whether in religion or a secular education). The book is basic, but it's a good one.

 

No. You may believe that you are taking them at face value but a simple dictionary proves otherwise.

 

Yes. It is odd that two people can read the same verse and hear different things. Can you show me where one of those verses state what Christ experienced was God's anger, or that what Christ suffered was God's punishment?

 

Here is what I’ve been talking about:

2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf

I say that this verse states that God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf.

I am told that it instead states “an angry God wrathfully punished His Son for the sins of others.”

I am sure that at least one of us is interpreting the verse through our own presuppositions rather than reading what is actually written. And I am sure it is not me.