Penal Substitution

[Martin Marprelate]

If you do not understand that type of "restorative justice", then perhaps I can help a bit. This type of justice (in secular practice) does not necessarily have in focus what is best for the criminal. It does not eliminate punishment. In society it has in mind society itself. In terms of divine justice it has in mind the holiness, sovereignty, will and plan of God. God is not bound by the Law to inflict certain punishments, but rather to act justly given the circumstance. Under restorative justice when one truly repents God is faithful to forgive. Retributive Justice demands a punishment for a crime itself - an "eye for an eye". A man may truly repent but God will not forgive except that punishment be rendered (directed at the sin, not the sinner who committed the sin, if a substitute takes that punishment).

I notice that you have delivered this spiel with any regard whatsoever to Scripture.
Let me quote. Proverbs 17:15 to you again. 'He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just are both of them alike an abomination to the LORD.' So God is bound to punish sin. That is why the Lord Jesus had willingly to be 'made sin,' for otherwise God could not punish Him.

God is not bound by the Law to inflict certain punishments, but rather to act justly given the circumstance.

God is bound to do both those things.

Under restorative justice when one truly repents God is faithful to forgive.

As you have written it here, this is pure Romanism. One undergoes the sacrament of confession, possibly is given a penance to do, and Hey Presto! One is forgiven; Christ does not come into it. But in fact it is only by the suffering and the shed blood of Christ that we can be forgiven at all.

Retributive Justice demands a punishment for a crime itself - an "eye for an eye".

Didn't I see that in the Bible somewhere? No, I can't have done; you say there is no retributive justice in the Bible. yet here it is-- Exodus 21:24 etc.
But, you say, what about Matthew 5:38? This is the law for Christians: we who have been forgiven so much through the penal substitution of Christ for our sins, and who are born again of the Spirit of God, leave judgement to Him. 'For it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says the Lord (Romans 12:19). Retributive justice is God's prerogative.

A man may truly repent but God will not forgive except that punishment be rendered (directed at the sin, not the sinner who committed the sin, if a substitute takes that punishment).

This is a very serious libel upon the Lord and, again, you may wish to reconsider it. '....That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in [Christ's] name to all nations....' (Luke 24:47). True [godly-- 2 Corinthians 7:10) repentance is a turning away from sin and towards Christ and is actually a gift of God (Acts 11:18). To say that God may not forgive such repentance is a dreadful falsehood against Him. But of course, such repentance and forgiveness is only made possible by the atoning death of Christ. 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'

Your claim that 'retributive justice' does not have regard to the person but the sin is also quite wrong. Here we go again: 'He who justifies the wicked [person] and he who condemns the just [person] are both of them alike an abomination to the LORD.'
Psalm 5:6. 'You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; the LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.' It is not only the bloodthirstiness and deceit that God abhors, but the people as well (c.f. also Proverbs 6:16-19. It is not only the lies that God hates, but the false witness who speaks them etc.).

 

[JonC]

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.

As anticipated.

The simple fact is that we have to understand these things within a context or we will not understand at all. Throughout history the environment in which the Church found itself contributed to its doctrine. The failing her is an inability to objectively view Scripture. You see the passages you provide only through the context you have provided. That is the ground upon which you stand, and therefore you cannot go any further.

Thank you for the interaction. I didn't think you would stay as I refused to argue (or even reveal) my view and left the burden of proof on you. You simply can't prove what isn't there.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Again, I don't care if it is a false dichotomy 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.

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.

With respect, I have not seen you take a single quotation out of my O.P.s. You have taken a phrase I cannot recall using-- retributive justice-- and foisted it upon the thread. Frankly, I am sick to death of talking about that topic, so if you don't believe it then please stop going on about it!!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

From the O.P.
Penal Substitution is rooted in the character of God as He revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7. “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.” Immediately the question arises, how can God be merciful and gracious, how can He forgive iniquity, transgression and sin without clearing the guilty? How can He clear the guilty if He abounds with truth—if He is a ‘just Judge’ (Psalm 7:11)? How can it be said that, ‘Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed’ unless God can simultaneously punish sin and forgive sinners? The answer is that ‘God……devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him’ (2 Samuel 14:14). Those means are Penal Substitution. “Learn ye, my friends, to look upon God as being as severe in His justice as if He were not loving, and yet as loving as if He were not severe. His love does not diminish His justice nor does His justice, in the least degree, make warfare upon His love. The two are sweetly linked together in the atonement of Christ” (C.H. Spurgeon).

 

[Yeshua1]

Restorative justice looks at the person, the originator of the act. God is holy. Er was wicked and God slew him. The church is to remove the wicked man. God would be just had He chosen to destroy all humanity rather than save a people.

Retributive justice looks at the offense and penalty. Er does something wicked so someone must be punished for that wicked act. David commits murder but God forgives him and punishes Jesus for that sin. Or Er repents and does good in the sight of God but God slays him because justice demanded his wicked act be punished regardless of Er's state.

I believe you are misunderstanding restorative justice to have man rather than God in view (probably because PSA has man and man's sin rather than God in view). But in Genesis the family of Judah is restored in accord with God's will. NOT because someone committed an act that demanded God kill Er but because Er was wicked. It is restorative justice.

the soul that sins against the Law of God must pay be their own death, so Jesus accepted to take in our state the due penalty for our sin breaking!owed

 

[Yeshua1]

If you do not understand that type of "restorative justice", then perhaps I can help a bit. This type of justice (in secular practice) does not necessarily have in focus what is best for the criminal. It does not eliminate punishment. In society it has in mind society itself. In terms of divine justice it has in mind the holiness, sovereignty, will and plan of God. God is not bound by the Law to inflict certain punishments, but rather to act justly given the circumstance. Under restorative justice when one truly repents God is faithful to forgive. Retributive Justice demands a punishment for a crime itself - an "eye for an eye". A man may truly repent but God will not forgive except that punishment be rendered (directed at the sin, not the sinner who committed the sin, if a substitute takes that punishment).

And yes, the goal is restorative. I think we agree on this. Scripture teaches that on the Cross God was reconciling the world to Himself, that it is by Christ's blood we are freed from the bondage of sin, etc. What Scripture itself seems not to teach, however, is that divine justice is also of the type PSA assumes.

I do not want to discuss the morality of retributive justice here (but it would be a good discussion). And I would love to discuss other aspects you have brought out regarding PSA, like the nature of forgiveness itself, but unfortunately these things go back to assuming a contextual framework that has yet been proven. I want you to provide via Scripture proof that divine justice in salvation is within it's framework so that we can move on and discuss PSA.

The basis of God freely forgiving any sinner would be due to Jesus death in their behalf, by Him taking their due wrath and judgement from God. correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

If God could not rightly judge all as sinners in Adam, how can He then be able to judge all in Christ as now saved?

 

[Van]

First PST is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. PST teaches that Christ died for the specific sins of those individual chosen to be saved. Both concepts are mistaken.

Christ died for the sin of the world. Any individual transferred into Christ will undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration, and arise in Christ a new creation, made perfect, righteous and holy.

Penal substitution holds Christ died for the specific sins of specific individuals, thus advocates Limited Atonement. This is the elephant in the room.

The other view is Christ died for the sin of the world, all mankind. When any individual is placed spiritually into Christ, their sins, past, present and future, are taken away, removed by the Circumcision of Christ.

Here are the two views of Christ’s Substitutionary Sacrifice on the cross.

Christ died for the specific sins of the elect.
Christ died for the sin of all mankind, elect and non-elect.

If Christ died for the specific sins of all mankind, then God is demanding "double payment" punishing Christ for the specific sins of those in hell, and punishing those in hell for their sins.

Often you will see the line, "Christ died for our sins" but "our" is not defined as all mankind or as the elect. Hence a Trojan horse, with a "hidden" agenda.

Unless you define "your" view of PSA as Christ dying for the sin of all mankind, you are pushing Limited Atonement. Please provide a quote that supports your assertion.

Here is one view: "Kenneth J. Collins in his book "The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace" writes, "for Wesley, Christ makes compensation and satisfies the justice of God precisely by standing in the place of sinful humanity," Note that this view refers to "sinful humanity" not "sinners" as in specific individuals.

Show me a quote that says PSA refers to Christ dying for "sinful humanity" today. That little tidbit is left out of the definitions found today. PSA today refers to the Reformed view.

Here is the Wikipedia definition: "Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution)...." Note the reference to specific "sinners."

Again, if you define PSA as Christ dying for all mankind, you are referring to an old and outdated view.

Calvin and a few other Reformation theologians linked the concept of the elect and of predestination to the Penal Theory. They taught that God selected a small percentage of people before their birth to form "the elect." They were not chosen because of any special achievement on their part. They did not deserve to be selected. They were chosen by a process known only to God. Philosopher Michael Martin explains: "Those who have faith in Jesus and are, therefore, saved are the elect of God. Their faith comes as a gift of God through the Holy Spirit...those who are saved through this gift were predestined to have this gift bestowed upon them." 3 Thus, Yeshua died, not to repay the debt for the sins of all humanity, but only for the sins of the elect.

 

[Yeshua1]

As anticipated.

The simple fact is that we have to understand these things within a context or we will not understand at all. Throughout history the environment in which the Church found itself contributed to its doctrine. The failing her is an inability to objectively view Scripture. You see the passages you provide only through the context you have provided. That is the ground upon which you stand, and therefore you cannot go any further.

Thank you for the interaction. I didn't think you would stay as I refused to argue (or even reveal) my view and left the burden of proof on you. You simply can't probe what isn't there.

Can you show from the scriptures how God can pardon and forgive our sins without someone having to pay the full due penalty for sins, that included divine wrath and judgement against sins?

Can even God forgive sinners who repent and confess , without that lamb substituted in their stead?

 

[Yeshua1]

First PST is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. PST teaches that Christ died for the specific sins of those individual chosen to be saved. Both concepts are mistaken.

Christ died for the sin of the world. Any individual transferred into Christ will undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration, and arise in Christ a new creation, made perfect, righteous and holy.

Penal substitution holds Christ died for the specific sins of specific individuals, thus advocates Limited Atonement. This is the elephant in the room.

The other view is Christ died for the sin of the world, all mankind. When any individual is placed spiritually into Christ, their sins, past, present and future, are taken away, removed by the Circumcision of Christ.

Here are the two views of Christ’s Substitutionary Sacrifice on the cross.

Christ died for the specific sins of the elect.
Christ died for the sin of all mankind, elect and non-elect.

If Christ died for the specific sins of all mankind, then God is demanding "double payment" punishing Christ for the specific sins of those in hell, and punishing those in hell for their sins.

Often you will see the line, "Christ died for our sins" but "our" is not defined as all mankind or as the elect. Hence a Trojan horse, with a "hidden" agenda.

Unless you define "your" view of PSA as Christ dying for the sin of all mankind, you are pushing Limited Atonement. Please provide a quote that supports your assertion.

Here is one view: "Kenneth J. Collins in his book "The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace" writes, "for Wesley, Christ makes compensation and satisfies the justice of God precisely by standing in the place of sinful humanity," Note that this view refers to "sinful humanity" not "sinners" as in specific individuals.

Show me a quote that says PSA refers to Christ dying for "sinful humanity" today. That little tidbit is left out of the definitions found today. PSA today refers to the Reformed view.

Here is the Wikipedia definition: "Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution)...." Note the reference to specific "sinners."

Again, if you define PSA as Christ dying for all mankind, you are referring to an old and outdated view.

Calvin and a few other Reformation theologians linked the concept of the elect and of predestination to the Penal Theory. They taught that God selected a small percentage of people before their birth to form "the elect." They were not chosen because of any special achievement on their part. They did not deserve to be selected. They were chosen by a process known only to God. Philosopher Michael Martin explains: "Those who have faith in Jesus and are, therefore, saved are the elect of God. Their faith comes as a gift of God through the Holy Spirit...those who are saved through this gift were predestined to have this gift bestowed upon them." 3 Thus, Yeshua died, not to repay the debt for the sins of all humanity, but only for the sins of the elect.

Jesus could not actually die in the place of all sinners, foir that would mean not one sinner would be now not reconciled back to God!

 

[JonC]

With respect, I have not seen you take a single quotation out of my O.P.s. You have taken a phrase I cannot recall using-- retributive justice-- and foisted it upon the thread. Frankly, I am sick to death of talking about that topic, so if you don't believe it then please stop going on about it!!

You are right, I have not. I read your summary and thought it both detailed and logical. But before addressing the points PSA makes i thought it best to deal with with what it assumes. If divine justice does not operate within the contextual framework upon which PSA derives its conclusions then regardless of its logic it is false.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are right, I have not. I read your summary and thought it both detailed and logical. But before addressing the points PSA makes i thought it best to deal with with what it assumes. If divine justice does not operate within the contextual framework upon which PSA derives its conclusions then regardless of its logic it is false.

The problem is that the context for PSA is not based upon calvin view of leagle system, but rooted in the very framework of the Sacrifice system in the OT!

 

[JonC]

Can you show from the scriptures how God can pardon and forgive our sins without someone having to pay the full due penalty for sins, that included divine wrath and judgement against sins?

Can even God forgive sinners who repent and confess , without that lamb substituted in their stead?

Yes. If a nation repents and turns to God He will heal them. David was forgiven by God for murder. The woman caught in adultery was forgiven. The lame begger was forgiven. Scripture states these people were forgiven their sins. You add that they were forgiven because God punished Jesus with the punishments for those sins.

 

[JonC]

The problem is that the context for PSA is not based upon calvin view of leagle system, but rooted in the very framework of the Sacrifice system in the OT!

No, it is not. Now, prove me wrong. Is there an example in the OT system where sin is transferred from one guilty person to an innocent person, the innocent punished for the crime in order to justify the wicked? Is that how you understand the Law to work? Why?

 

[JonC]

Jesus could not actually die in the place of all sinners, foir that would mean not one sinner would be now not reconciled back to God!

ONLY under the context you are providing, that's what you seem not to get. If your idea of justice is wrong and thus far it at least appears extra-biblical) then PSA is wrong then your view of the scope of the atonement is wrong, then your understanding of the Cross is wrong......all of your eggs depend on a philosophical idea absent from Scripture.

 

[agedman]

May I butt in to this thread.

There is this concept that God PUNISHED Himself.

That is just not supported in Scripture.

As I shared on a different thread, God was pleased that Christ suffered. However the suffering WAS NOT From God’s hand.

Rather, all that was doing the punishment was by the ungodly nature which occurs anytime God withholds support.

Through Scripture, in EVERY instance in which God’s wrath is displayed, it is by humans and nature occurring as a result of God withholding support.

This was the events of the cross.

There is only ONE place in all Scripture where God very directly by His own strength brings the wrath. That is at the second coming when the forces of this ungodly world are crushed by His sword.

God did not punish His Son, He was (according to Isaiah 53:10) pleased to allow what humans and nature do because it is what they by the ungodly authority do.

Now, I will bow out.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. If a nation repents and turns to God He will heal them. David was forgiven by God for murder. The woman caught in adultery was forgiven. The lame begger was forgiven. Scripture states these people were forgiven their sins. You add that they were forgiven because God punished Jesus with the punishments for those sins.

The ONLY reason and basis that God could and did forgive them though was based upon the death of Jesus as the substitute sin bearer in their stead, and not based upon anything that the sinner has done!

 

[Yeshua1]

May I butt in to this thread.

There is this concept that God PUNISHED Himself.

That is just not supported in Scripture.

As I shared on a different thread, God was pleased that Christ suffered. However the suffering WAS NOT From God’s hand.

Rather, all that was doing the punishment was by the ungodly nature which occurs anytime God withholds support.

Through Scripture, in EVERY instance in which God’s wrath is displayed, it is by humans and nature occurring as a result of God withholding support.

This was the events of the cross.

There is only ONE place in all Scripture where God very directly by His own strength brings the wrath. That is at the second coming when the forces of this ungodly world are crushed by His sword.

God did not punish His Son, He was (according to Isaiah 53:10) pleased to allow what humans and nature do because it is what they by the ungodly authority do.

Now, I will bow out.

God Himself directed His wrath towards and upon Jesus, as it was God Himself who bore the full penalty in our stead!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, it is not. Now, prove me wrong. Is there an example in the OT system where sin is transferred from one guilty person to an innocent person, the innocent punished for the crime in order to justify the wicked? Is that how you understand the Law to work? Why?

Jesus did not become actual sin, as he always stay blameless and undefiled, but in the sight of God He took and bore our sins in the sense of His death was in our own place, and there was a wrath of God to be satisfied here!
Do you beleive that God has an active wrath towards sins and sinners, that there is a judgement towards them that involves wrath coming down upon them?

 

[Yeshua1]

ONLY under the context you are providing, that's what you seem not to get. If your idea of justice is wrong and thus far it at least appears extra-biblical) then PSA is wrong then your view of the scope of the atonement is wrong, then your understanding of the Cross is wrong......all of your eggs depend on a philosophical idea absent from Scripture.

Your understanding seems to be devoid of including the wrath of God that comes against sinners, and towards Jesus as their sin bearer!