Penal Substitution

[JonC]

Who is it that is being made sin? Answer; THE JUST! Who is it that he is being made sin FOR? Answer: THE UNJUST!! Who is it that makes him so? Answer: GOD! Therefore, God says it is JUST to condemn THE JUST in behalf "for" "THE UNJUST" in order to JUSTIFY the wicked!

Who is it that demands a ceremonial sacrifice that is "without spot and blemish"? Answer: God What does the typology of "without spot and blemish" mean? Answer: the type of THE JUST. Who is the typological Just sacrificed in behalf of? Answer; THE UNJUST. What is the nature of this sacrifice? Answer "FOR SIN" "FOR US" not either/or but BOTH. Why does God need satisfaction by sacrifice for sin and sinners? Answer: Because God's holy Law demands penal consequences for violation of its holy standards. Why does the Law's penal consequences need to be satisfied? Answer: Because God is Just and Holy!! Who demanded the penal conquences for violation of His Law? Answer: God did. Who satisfies both the righteous and penal demands of His Law? Answer: Jesus voluntarily satisfies both in behalf of, for, in the place of His people.

Jon, I just don't know why you can't see the obvious? Your questions are nothing but loops of irrationale.

We have already established that a one cannot be made actual sin (sin is not, as Martin pointed out, something of that sort). I understand, however, your assertion. While I am a bit puzzled that you seem unaware of other interpretations (choosing the "it is obvious" defense), I do comprehend your conclusions but they are based on what you believe the text "obviously" implies. This is weak ground upon which to build.

 

[JonC]

There is no such thing as righteousness at the expense of justice! No such righteousness of that kind exists in our court systems or in God's court system.

Paul is referring to the life AND death of Christ as the satisfaction for sin in this context (Rom. 3:19-25).The righteousness manifested apart from the Law is found in the LIFE and DEATH of Christ - the incarnation and sacrifice.

Again, you are introducing your own presuppositions into the text.

Is it just to convict the righteous to justify the wicked? If so, please provide Scripture to prove your claim.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, you are introducing your own presuppositions into the text.

Is it just to convict the righteous to justify the wicked?

Please stop this kind of foolishness! No one has confused "convict" with "condemn". No one has charged God with convicting Jesus of sin - no one!

 

[The Biblicist]

We have already established that a one cannot be made actual sin (sin is not, as Martin pointed out, something of that sort).

No one is saying that Christ was literally and actually made to be sin and YOU KNOW THAT! So there is really no need to say you are "a bit puzzled"!!! If you want to argue just to argue then lets stop this discussion as that is a waste of time. Jesus was "made to be sin" IN EXACTLY THE SAME SENSE we are made righteous in this text. The only consistent application is imputation in God's law court and that is justification.

 

[The Biblicist]

The real issue here is your failure to comprehend the Law of God for what it really is - inseparable from God. Jesus made it crystal clear that the essence of the law is love. You seem not to understand that! If you do understand that, then the law and God are inseparably one and therefore the penalty of the law must be satisfied or God is at odds with his own nature as both sin and sinners are an offence to his OWN PERSON and justice requires penal satisfaction.

 

[The Biblicist]

No one is saying that Christ was literally and actually made to be sin and YOU KNOW THAT! So there is really no need to say you are "a bit puzzled"!!! If you want to argue just to argue then lets stop this discussion as that is a waste of time. Jesus was "made to be sin" IN EXACTLY THE SAME SENSE we are made righteous in this text. The only consistent application is imputation in God's law court and that is justification.

Please stop this kind of foolishness! No one has confused "convict" with "condemn". No one has charged God with convicting Jesus of sin - no one!

For example, the lamb without spot and blemish was not "convicted" of lacking spot or blemish and yet was "condemned" to death "for sin" of the people. The type is parallel with Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly. You can't punish a sin any more than God could justly punish one person or group for the sins of another. Neither can you transfer sin or substitute one for the sins of another. It is, as you say, daft. The issue is sin as a power and sinful actions as manifestations of a sinners sinfulness. This is the issue we are discussing- God cannot justly punish Jesus for the sins of another because the sin is inseparably linked to the sinner. Jesus can, however, bear our sins corporately...not only our sins but the sins of the whole world because He became a curse and tasted death for us.

Jesus was the Sin Bearing lamb of God , who was willing to tak ethe full wrath of the father upon Himself in order to be abke to savethose whom he died in the place of on the Cross. Someone HAD to die to pay the sin debt, and if the Lord Jesus was not my personal substitute, than how was God able to now freely forgive me?

 

[Yeshua1]

The Father offered Him as a guilt offering. It was the Fathers will to crush Him, putting Him to grief. If He would render Himself a guilt offering He will see His offspring, prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hands.

What part of that says God was wrathful to Christ by punishing Him with the punishment due our sins in order to satisfy the demands of the Law in our stead as our forgiveness? Do you at least see that you are applying a context you systematically developed to this passage, or do you truly not understand the difference between the actual text and your interpretation?

God crushed/bruised/laid waste to the Suffering Servant, how was that not enduring the wrath/punishment of God directed towards sinners?

 

[JonC]

The real issue here is your failure to comprehend the Law of God for what it really is - inseparable from God. Jesus made it crystal clear that the essence of the law is love. You seem not to understand that! If you do understand that, then the law and God are inseparably one and therefore the penalty of the law must be satisfied or God is at odds with his own nature as both sin and sinners are an offence to his OWN PERSON and justice requires penal satisfaction.

Perhaps, but this is not what we are discussing. Before we move on you must prove via Scripture that it is just to condemn the righteous in place of the wicked. You have to show that the Law allows sin to be assumed by an innocent party (You have to prove what Martin called a "false dichotomy", that justice looks to the sin apart from the actual sinner). Until then everything is diversion.

 

[Van]

Now we are at 4 pages and counting.

1) As the Lamb of God, Christ became a sin offering for us. This is obvious.

2) As the Lamb of God, Christ takes away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time. When God transfers a person into Christ, they undergo the circumcision of Christ, where their sin burden (what God has against us for our sins) is removed, forgiven, and "nailed to the cross." This is obvious.

PSA (where Christ died for the specific sins of the previously chosen elect) is false theology, a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement.
The actual theology is Christ died for the sins of the world, and therefore anyone of the world, when transferred into Christ has his or her sins removed, and is therefore justified.

 

[JonC]

God crushed/bruised/laid waste to the Suffering Servant, how was that not enduring the wrath/punishment of God directed towards sinners?

It was enduring that wrath due sinful man. That was never the question.

 

[JonC]

Now we are at 4 pages and counting.

1) As the Lamb of God, Christ became a sin offering for us. This is obvious.

2) As the Lamb of God, Christ takes away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time. When God transfers a person into Christ, they undergo the circumcision of Christ, where their sin burden (what God has against us for our sins) is removed, forgiven, and "nailed to the cross." This is obvious.

PSA (where Christ died for the specific sins of the previously chosen elect) is false theology, a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement.
The actual theology is Christ died for the sins of the world, and therefore anyone of the world, when transferred into Christ has his or her sins removed, and is therefore justified.

I agree except for the Trojan Horse part. All five points of Calvinism are the logical conclusion of PSA.

 

[Yeshua1]

It was "right" to have Jesus die in our place, to be our substitute in our stead, as there was a real requirement for the Law to be satisfied by someone death, and someone had to face the full wrath of God being poured out in judgement upon sins.
God did not order jesus to "take it like a man", no, for they had been always in full agreement from Eternity past that His death on the Cross would be the full satisifaction for the due sin debt owed to a Holy God for breaking His Holy Law.

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps, but this is not what we are discussing. Before we move on you must prove via Scripture that it is just to condemn the righteous in place of the wicked. You have to show that the Law allows sin to be assumed by an innocent party (You have to prove what Martin called a "false dichotomy", that justice looks to the sin apart from the actual sinner). Until then everything is diversion.

For any objective reader, I have already proved it several times. Again, you have simply ignored the specifics of what I have offered in the last three posts. You generalize, you summarize but you never ever deal with the specifics and there is a very good reason why you don't.

 

[The Biblicist]

It was enduring that wrath due sinful man. That was never the question.

That my friend is the full crux of the question. Substitution is taking upon himself what is "due" sinful men. You have to ask the question OR at least you ought to ask the question "WHY is it due??" What basis is there for demanding it is due? The only possible Biblical answer is it is due because the Law demands a penalty for sin against sinners. Paul says we "were children OF WRATH even as others" and the only reason we are no longer children OF WRATH is not because God simply dismissed that penalty for sin but because he suffered what was DUE us.

 

[JonC]

For any objective reader, I have already proved it several times. Again, you have simply ignored the specifics of what I have offered in the last three posts. You generalize, you summarize but you never ever deal with the specifics and there is a very good reason why you don't.

Again, comments like "for any objective reader" only serves to conceal the fact that you have not shown through Scripture that it is just to condemn the righteous in order to justify the wicked. You have not demonstrated this type of justice via Scripture nor have you proven that sin is transferable. Statements such as "obviously" and "for any objective reader" is nothing but smoke when you consider how many throughout history sought to rightly understand God's word yet did not come to the same conclusions you make. Your points do not prove sin is transferable or that it is just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. You need to prove your contextual framework before you start presenting arguments that assume it is correct. As of yet, you have failed to do so.

Please provide an example from Scripture where it is considered just to condemn the righteous in order to justify the wicked. My conclusion is there is none (hence the rhetoric) because salvation has come apart from the Law. But I eagerly await your supporting passages.

 

[JonC]

That my friend is the full crux of the question. Substitution is taking upon himself what is "due" sinful men. You have to ask the question OR at least you ought to ask the question "WHY is it due??" What basis is there for demanding it is due? The only possible Biblical answer is it is due because the Law demands a penalty for sin against sinners. Paul says we "were children OF WRATH even as others" and the only reason we are no longer children OF WRATH is not because God simply dismissed that penalty for sin but because he suffered what was DUE us.

I do believe it is clear that the penalty is not dismissed. Scripture tells us that the Word became flesh and suffered even to the point of death in obedience to the Father and for our salvation. Jesus shared in our infirmity and suffered the wrath that is due humanity. But this isn't the question.

The question is whether or not it is just to condemn the righteous in order to justify the guilty and whether or not sin is transferable. Is it just to kill Bob for Mike's crime and allow Mike to go free because the penalty of that crime has been paid? That's what you have to prove - the type of justice you assume.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jon, over and over you claim certain things are not the issue, but when texts are provided to demonstrate your view is wrong, it is those very issues which you claim are not relevant that become your escape hatch to avoid the obvious import of a text. It is this looped reasoning that allows you to continue this discussion and claim we have not provided Biblical evidence.

For example, If you acknowledge the Law as to its very essence (love) is inseparable from God's own Person that would cut off one escape hatch you use to avoid that the Law must be satisfied with regard to its clearly stated penalty.

You attempt to muddy the waters by confusing "convict" with "condemn" when typology and clear scripture shows that not only the typological just (lamb without spot or blemish) as is the antitype ("the Just for the Unjust" with regard to suffering what is "due" the unjust - Christ was "made" to be sin in the exact same sense we are "made" to be righteous.

You had previously denied that Christ was the object of God's wrath, but death is God's penal wrath against sin and sinner, God did "afflict" and God did did "bruise" and God did these things in direct connection with "sin" due us.

However, your consistent repeated escape avenues have been those very things you repeatedly claim are not the real issue or subject of discussion, when in fact, if they are taken away from your response you view simply collapses.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, comments like "for any objective reader" only serves to conceal the fact that you have not shown through Scripture that it is just to condemn the righteous in order to justify the wicked. You have not demonstrated this type of justice via Scripture nor have you proven that sin is transferable. Statements such as "obviously" and "for any objective reader" is nothing but smoke when you consider how many throughout history sought to rightly understand God's word yet did not come to the same conclusions you make. Your points do not prove sin is transferable or that it is just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. You need to prove your contextual framework before you start presenting arguments that assume it is correct. As of yet, you have failed to do so.

Please provide an example from Scripture where it is considered just to condemn the righteous in order to justify the wicked. My conclusion is there is none (hence the rhetoric) because salvation has come apart from the Law. But I eagerly await your supporting passages.

Christ was "made to be sin" IN THE EXACT SAME SENSE as we are MADE TO BE RIGHTEOUS with regard to 2 Cor. 5:21

The sacrificial lamb was personally "without spot and blemnish" but CONDEMNED to death "FOR THE SINS" God's people and thus it is with the antitype as the very same language is applied to Christ and we are told explicitly that the JUST would "suffer" for the UNJUST with regard to sin. So the transfer of condemnation of the unjust to the just is clearly stated in Scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

The question is whether or not it is just to condemn the righteous in order to justify the guilty and whether or not sin is transferable. Is it just to kill Bob for Mike's crime and allow Mike to go free because the penalty of that crime has been paid? That's what you have to prove - the type of justice you assume.

You don't believe it is just to kill Christ for our crime that we can go free??? Was it just to condemn us to death for Adam's crime? You don't believe it is just to kill us for Adam's crime?

In other words you don't believe God would be just to appoint a substitutionary representative as in the case of Adam or the Second Adam???