Penal Substitution

[The Biblicist]

Again, I don't care if it is a false duichotomy or if it is exactly what Scripture states. I am not arguing what I believe here but instead asking you to prove what you have assumed. That is the topic of this thread.

This is a hypocritical response and I will demonstrate why it is a hypocritical response. On one hand you claim this point makes no difference to the ultimate question but on the other hand your arguments to support that ulimate question depend entirely upon this very issue you claim does not matter. It matters for you when you defend your position with regard to that question but it does not matter to you when it is proven that your argument based on that point is completely false! You can't have your cake and eat it too! If it does not matter than STOP defending your position by that supposedly irrelevant point. However, it does matter, because the truth that God's law is inseparable from God's nature (LOVE) totally annihilates your whole position.

 

[JonC]

You are mixing apples with oranges! You are attempting to compare fallen men with fallen men but Adam was an unfallen man and so were his descendants as long as he performed correctly. Fallen men already were justly condemned, but the posterity in Adam was not already condemned until one man sinned and it is by that one man and one man's sin that brought death upon "many" who were previous to that act without sin. So your response simply fails! If "many" existing "in Adam" prior to the fall were without sin but were "made sinners" due to one man's action than I ask you is God just for condemning "many" for one man's action?

Smoke screen. I am not mixing anything. I am asking that you prove divine justice in salvation is retributive justice. As we are five pages into this, trying to get this ONE point affirmed so that we can continue, I take it you cannot because it is something you have read into the text. Perhaps this is why your view is not only new to Christianity (relatively speaking) but also why it has been such a minority view for so long.

Do you want to just leave it as a presupposition imposed upon Scripture and see if we can continue...perhaps discussing the nature of forgiveness?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, Jesus suffered once for our sins - the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.... 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; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Jesus is the "Last Adam", and as I have stated over and over again, the atonement is substitutionary - the just for the unjust. Just as Adam represented mankind, so now Christ is the "last Adam". But this is not a righteousness under the Law but one apart from it. You still have not proved, via Scripture, your point.

Your response is simply a red herring as no one, and I mean no one denies the sacrificial offering had to be "without spot and blemish" otherwise it could not satisfy the demand of the Law to be righteous but that in no way denies it had to equally suffer death to satisfy the other demand of the Law which is retributive justice against sin.

Your view is simply a HALF truth and thus a perversion of the truth.

 

[JonC]

This is a hypocritical response and I will demonstrate why it is a hypocritical response. On one hand you claim this point makes no difference to the ultimate question but on the other hand your arguments to support that ulimate question depend entirely upon this very issue you claim does not matter. It matters for you when you defend your position with regard to that question but it does not matter to you when it is proven that your argument based on that point is completely false! You can't have your cake and eat it too! If it does not matter than STOP defending your position by that supposedly irrelevant point. However, it does matter, because the truth that God's law is inseparable from God's nature (LOVE) totally annihilates your whole position.

Again, I am not defending my position (I don't think you even know my position since I have not stated it).

I am asking you to prove, via Scripture, the context through which you interpret your position.

 

[JonC]

Your response is simply a red herring as no one, and I mean no one denies the sacrificial offering had to be "without spot and blemish" otherwise it could not satisfy the demand of the Law to be righteous but that in no way denies it had to equally suffer death to satisfy the other demand of the Law which is retributive justice against sin.

Your view is simply a HALF truth and thus a perversion of the truth.

I am not discussing the sacrificial offering, but instead I am asking you to prove, via Scripture, the contextual framework through which you interpret your position. Perhaps I will start a thread about what I believe at some point in the future, but it will not be this one.

 

[The Biblicist]

Smoke screen. I am not mixing anything. I am asking that you prove divine justice in salvation is retributive justice. As we are five pages into this, trying to get this ONE point affirmed so that we can continue, I take it you cannot because it is something you have read into the text. Perhaps this is why your view is not only new to Christianity (relatively speaking) but also why it has been such a minority view for so long.

Do you want to just leave it as a presupposition imposed upon Scripture and see if we can continue...perhaps discussing the nature of forgiveness?

You talk about "smoke screens" this takes the cake. No, you did not ask me to "prove divine justice in salvation is retributive justice" (although that was the larger question) but you asked me to prove that in God's system of justice if the righteous can justly suffer for the unrighteous. That was the immediate question I responded to! I proved that principle in reverse from a negative perspective with the case of Adam and "many." God could and did justly condemn "many" for the act of one man and therefore God can and did justify the unrigheous by the suffering of one righteous man.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not discussing the sacrificial offering, but instead I am asking you to prove, via Scripture, the contextual framework through which you interpret your position. Perhaps I will start a thread about what I believe at some point in the future, but it will not be this one.

Are you denying that Christ was the sacrificial offering on the cross for sinners? I never mentioned the Old Testament sacrificial type! Is not the very sacrificial language "without spot or blemish" directly applied to Christ by Peter? Did not John the Baptist say "Behold THE LAMB OF GOD that taketh away the sin of the world"???? We are indeed discussing the sacrificial offering in its ultimate Biblical application.

We have nailed down our framework repeatedly and the only way you have been able to escape the evidence is by using certain escape hatches (thus vital for the survival of your theory) which when I confront all of a sudden become non-essentials and off topic issues.

 

[JonC]

You talk about "smoke screens" this takes the cake. No, you did not ask me to "prove divine justice in salvation is retributive justice" (although that was the larger question) but you asked me to prove that in God's system of justice if the righteous can justly suffer for the unrighteous. That was the immediate question I responded to! I proved that principle in reverse from a negative perspective with the case of Adam and "many." God could and did justly condemn "many" for the act of one man and therefore God can and did justify the unrigheous by the suffering of one righteous man.

I see. In terms of Christ being our representative I have already affirmed that substitution means the just for the unjust, but this was not in the dialogue between us. You have my apologies for my assumption, and I will try to rephrase the question.

I agree that the atonement is substitutionary in terms of the just for the unjust. We have been purchased with a price, Jesus - who had no sin - bore our sins and suffered so that we might have life. My disagreement was not on this corporate level (that Christ bore the sins of humanity, took upon Himself all that it means to be human, faced the just wrath against mankind). Instead I was speaking the context which is unique to PSA - that on an individual level Divine Justice demands sins be punished even apart from the one who has actually sinned.

Now that we are on track, I've been asking that this one thing be proven via Scripture so that we can move on and discuss PSA.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, I am not defending my position (I don't think you even know my position since I have not stated it).

I am asking you to prove, via Scripture, the context through which you interpret your position.

Your arguments are laced with escape hatch definitions, without which your arguments simply vanish! You can't have your cake and eat it too! If your arguments rest upon such irrelevant definitions and yet you deny they are relevant and refuse to deal with objections that prove they are relevant then why are we continuing this discussion as it can only be an endless irrational loop of hopeless argumentation? You don't have the basics correct and therefore you can't have the proper outcome correct. It is just that simple. If you are not going to face the very false definitions and arguments your arguments consist of, there is no point in furthering this discussion.

 

[JonC]

Are you denying that Christ was the sacrificial offering on the cross for sinners? I never mentioned the Old Testament sacrificial type! Is not the very sacrificial language "without spot or blemish" directly applied to Christ by Peter? Did not John the Baptist say "Behold THE LAMB OF GOD that taketh away the sin of the world"???? We are indeed discussing the sacrificial offering in its ultimate Biblical application.

We have nailed down our framework repeatedly and the only way you have been able to escape the evidence is by using certain escape hatches (thus vital for the survival of your theory) which when I confront all of a sudden become non-essentials and off topic issues.

No. I am saying that your theory looks more like the RCC and the Reformers than it does Scripture. I am saying, regardless of what I believe of the sacrificial system, that you have not justified the context you are using to interpret the issue. My beliefs are not even a part of this thread.

 

[JonC]

Your arguments are laced with escape hatch definitions, without which your arguments simply vanish!

I am not arguing my position. I am asking you to provide biblical support for yours - for the context you provide (i.e., why you interpret the passages as you do) because they have not always (not for most of Christianity) been interpreted that way. This doesn't make them wrong, but I would like to know what verse you can offer.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that the atonement is substitutionary in terms of the just for the unjust.

But that is not what Peter said! He said that the Just "suffered" for the unjust and so this is not generic substitutionary atonement but substitutionary suffering by the Just for the unjust. All suffering by fallen mankind has its root in sin and all suffering by mankind has its end in death. Death is the PENAL consequence of sin and therefore suffering is the PENAL consequence of our sins, so "substitutionary suffering" is nothing less (it is much more than but at minimum nothing less than) PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY atonement. If Paul could not say Christ died for "my" sins he certainly could not say Christ died for "OUR" sins or anyone elses sins. So your corporate level distinction versus personal level with regard to the atonement is pointless as application is where the rubber meets the highway and application is always personal/individual.

 

[The Biblicist]

No. I am saying that your theory looks more like the RCC and the Reformers than it does Scripture. I am saying, regardless of what I believe of the sacrificial system, that you have not justified the context you are using to interpret the issue. My beliefs are not even a part of this thread.

What you mean to say is that it "looks more like the RCC and the Reformers than it does Scripture" FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE! But we are denying YOUR PERSPECTIVE is scriptural, so you are charging us by way of your own presuppositions. Let's remain objective and see whose position is more scriptural.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not arguing my position. I am asking you to provide biblical support for yours - for the context you provide (i.e., why you interpret the passages as you do) because they have not always (not for most of Christianity) been interpreted that way. This doesn't make them wrong, but I would like to know what verse you can offer.

You are providing arguments against our position and those arguments are laced with false definitions and false reasonings without which your arguments simply vanish away. Stop using those arguments AGAINST our position if you do not want to be held accountable for them. Stop claiming they are irrelevant when your argument against our position depends on their validity if you don't want to be confronted and held accountable for them.

 

[JonC]

What you mean to say is that it "looks more like the RCC and the Reformers than it does Scripture" FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE! But we are denying YOUR PERSPECTIVE is scriptural, so you are charging us by way of your own presuppositions. Let's remain objective and see whose position is more scriptural.

Ok. Please justify the context of divine justice you suppose via Scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

However, let us return to basics because I believe your position is due to denying basic truths.

1. Do you believe the Law of God as administered under Moses has retributive penalties for violation of its precepts such as in the phrase "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"? Yes or no?

2. Are those retributive penalties inclusive of capital punishment (e.g. for rape, murder, blaspheming, etc.) and if so, then how can that kind of penalty be restorative or restorative justice since it terminates the human life?

3. Since death and all that it entails is retributive justice under the Mosaic Law and the Mosaic Law is called "the Law OF GOD" does not therefore the "law of God" include retributive penalties and thus include retributive justice?

4. Since Jesus demands that the essence of "the whole law and the prophets" is summarized in the principle of love, and since God "is love" did Adam violate the very essence of God's Law in the Garden? Did not he fail to love God?

5. Is not therefore "death" in Genesis 2:17 a retributive penalty for violation of God's Law? If not, then how do you explain the death of the non-elect as restorative?

6. If death is a retributive condemnation for violation of God's Law and if Christ "died for us" how can you deny that the Just (Christ) "suffered" the retributive condemnation of death "for the Unjust"? You do deny the Just can justly suffer for the unjust do you not?

As far as I can see, you have not attempted to reply to the above post. Please do! Why? Because I believe your arguments against our position rest upon failure to understand basic truth which will be demonstrated by your answers to the above questions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok. Please justify the context of divine justice you suppose via Scripture.

You don't understand! We already have done so very thoroughly and the only reaction against our evidence has been your responses that are laced with and thoroughly dependent upon what you claim to be irrelevant issues. Remove these "irrelevant issues" from your arguments and you have no arguments at all. Therefore, our arguments stand as solid Biblical attestation to our position.

For example, your false dichotomy that one must embrace either/or restorative verus retributive justice is false - a red herring when the atonement is inclusive of both.

For example, your false dichotomy between the Law of God and the Person of God when the law of God is defined by Christ in essence to be the "love" of God.

Your argumentation demonstrates lack of understanding of some very basic Biblical truths.

 

[JonC]

But that is not what Peter said! He said that the Just "suffered" for the unjust and so this is not generic substitutionary atonement but substitutionary suffering by the Just for the unjust. All suffering by fallen mankind has its root in sin and all suffering by mankind has its end in death. Death is the PENAL consequence of sin and therefore suffering is the PENAL consequence of our sins, so "substitutionary suffering" is nothing less (it is much more than but at minimum nothing less than) PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY atonement. If Paul could not say Christ died for "my" sins he certainly could not say Christ died for "OUR" sins or anyone elses sins. So your corporate level distinction versus personal level with regard to the atonement is pointless as application is where the rubber meets the highway and application is always personal/individual.

You are not seeing past your presuppositions. When I was in the military I suffered hardships for my countrymen. This does not mean my nation punished me with the hardships my fellow Americans would have faced had I not been their substitute. I am not saying this illustrates the cross, but it does illustrate your assumptions.

 

[JonC]

As far as I can see, you have not attempted to reply to the above post. Please do! Why? Because I believe your arguments against our position rest upon failure to understand basic truths demonstrated by your answers to the above questions.

Out of respect for @Martin Marprelate . My beliefs are not the topic. Martin was gracious enough to start the thread to demonstrate biblical PSA. I am trying to keep with the OP. It is about you and your view, not me and mine. Prove your point, starting with the context you assume.

 

[The Biblicist]

You don't understand! We already have done so very thoroughly and the only reaction against our evidence has been your responses that are laced with and thoroughly dependent upon what you claim to be irrelevant issues. Remove these "irrelevant issues" from your arguments and you have no arguments at all. Therefore, our arguments stand as solid Biblical attestation to our position.

For example, your false dichotomy that one must embrace either/or restorative verus retributive justice is false - a red herring when the atonement is inclusive of both.

For example, your false dichotomy between the Law of God and the Person of God when the law of God is defined by Christ in essence to be the "love" of God.

Out of respect for @Martin Marprelate . My beliefs are not the topic. Martin was gracious enough to start the thread to demonstrate biblical PSA. I am trying to keep with the OP. It is about you and your view, not me and mine. Prove your point, starting with the context you assume.

Any reasonable dialogue is impossible with a person who responds by arguments against what their opponent has said that is filled with and based upon falsehoods, which that person refuses to be confronted with. I bow out of this argumentation simply because it is a waste of my time.