PSA Justice vs Biblical Justice

[JonC]

The good news is that the Lord Jesus has willingly taken upon Himself our sins and the punishment due to us (Isaiah 53:5 etc.)

Isaiah 53:5 says that Jesus was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our wrongdoings, that the punishment for our well-being was laid upon Him and by His wounds we are healed.

On this we agree.

But the ultimate question is whether PSA is enough of a departure from God's Word to negate salvation (does it alter the gospel of Jesus Christ enough to be "another gospel" entirely).

I really do not know. I think I was truly saved while holding PSA. But as salvation in the present points to a future reality (it is escaping the wrath to come) it could be questionable. Abandoning PSA could point to me having been saved while holding the theory or it could point to being drawn to the faith.

My opinion is I was saved and PSA does not exclude one from being among the elect, but it depends on how one holds that understanding.

If they lean on their understanding (here, PSA) they are most likely lost (they have not repented, they do not believe, their minds are set on the flesh, their own understanding). If they hold it at arms length and lean not on their understanding then they may be saved.

But insofar as Isaiah 53 goes, we agree on the biblical text. We disagree on how your theology uses the text.

 

[DaveXR650]

I strongly disagree.

There are several points to Ezekiel. Do not punish the sons for the sins of the father. God's justice is different from what Israel had been doing. Etc.

I'm aware you strongly disagree with everything I say. But for one thing, I'm not sure chapter 18 is about the need to correct what the people were doing - in that they were punishing children for the sins of their fathers and so on. Rather, I think it was correcting the false view that they had developed that that was the way God judged and did justice.

The only requirement in Scripture (in the entirety of Scripture) for forgiveness is repentance.

Yes. This is the only requirement on our part. (Now I am excluding the fact that it is tied in by necessity to faith, and I am not discussing here to what extent this is a spiritual gift or of yourself), but I do agree that it is what we must do.

God can forgive sins. Your ideas that God must punish sins in order to "forgive" those sins negates forgiveness itself.

I don't know what warrant you have to come up with such a statement other than your own philosophy, although proper credit should be given to Socinus. Scripture seems to indicate otherwise.

 

[Dave G]

All,
My point in answering Jon in this thread is this:

If someone is going to teach something that is considered doctrinal ( in this case "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" ), shouldn't it be completely accurate to the Scriptures?
That brings me to the main reason that I am "chasing this squirrel", and why I find it to be so important:

Most people have a tendency to hold on to the truths that they were taught for most, ( if not all ) of their earthly lives...and changing that set of "truths", and replacing them ( with even genuine truths ) I've personally found to be a bit difficult;
It can be done, but wouldn't it be easier to teach it correctly the first time and not have to go back and "break down the foundation" because parts of it were laid wrong?

I suppose many would say that I'm looking at this far too closely;
I don't believe that I am.
I'm expressing things the way that I do because to me, truth is found in the details...in this case, the details of God's every word.
So, if someone is going to teach that my Lord "died in my place" and "took upon Himself my punishment" at the cross, then they should be absolutely correct about it, or I'm not going to subscribe to it.

That said ( and even though it pains me to state this ), anyone that tries to persuade me ( and most of all to teach others ) that "He took my punishment" on the cross, is going to be met with disagreement;
And that point of disagreement remains:

I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures the Lord telling His people that their Saviour "suffered God's wrath and took their punishment", because our punishment puts us square in Hell after this life, and in the Lake of Fire to suffer everlasting torment come Judgement Day...
Right where all who are not saved will be.

I'm sorry to offend, but there it is.


May God bless you.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why would God punish the sins of those who have died to sin, been made a new creation, been conformed into Christ's image, been made righteous?

For justice He would not need to. He would have accomplished justice in a way different from the law but not contrary to the law.

In post 37 @Martin Marprelate has some wise advise for you. Our minds and our language are only capable of expressing one thought at a time. You really do have a tendency to basically interpret scripture such that a statement by definition must exclude and contradict all other ideas if they are not all included in the passage you are reading. This applies to this discussion in that because Christ, at his death took the punishment and guilt due us and bore it in his own body on the cross. But in addition to that those who come to Christ are considered to have died with him, died to sin, been made new creations. Strong advocates of penal substitution like Horatius Bonar flat out say that "we died with Christ". So does G. Campbell Morgan. But they do not feel that this demands a distinction to where that necessitates that if we died with Christ then we cannot say Christ died for our sins and in our place. Nor do they suggest that if Christ did this that thus repentance is not a necessity. I would rethink all this.

 

[JonC]

I'm not sure chapter 18 is about the need to correct what the people were doing - in that they were punishing children for the sins of their fathers and so on. Rather, I think it was correcting the false view that they had developed that that was the way God judged and did justice.

I cannot see this in the passage (God very strongly told them to stop, to no longer use that saying, not to punish the sons for the sins of the fathers).

But you do show a difference that may deserve discussion.

@Martin Marprelate (awhile back...I am not finding the post) argued that punishing the righteous and clearing the wicked is an abomination only in regard to men judging.

I disagree because I believe that justice (righteousness) is always based on God. There are not different standards.

 

[DaveXR650]

I cannot see this in the passage (God very strongly told them to stop, to no longer use that saying, not to punish the sons for the sins of the fathers).

Maybe I'm wrong on this. I just read it in context with the earlier chapters and only looked for the plainest, most obvious meaning but I don't see why suddenly in chapter 18 the tone would shift to correct the judicial policy of the legal system of Israel. Rather, I think it is saying that God after all the talk of previous judgement in previous chapters on the people that they needed to be reminded that God judges you as an individual by what you have done, not by what your parents have done.

@Martin Marprelate (awhile back...I am not finding the post) argued that punishing the righteous and clearing the wicked is an abomination only in regard to men judging.

I can't speak for Martin but I think he was refuting the common objection, raised most expertly by Socinus, that it is wrong for God to punish Jesus on our behalf because of this basic principle of God's justice. Martin was, if I remember right, explaining that this would apply to our human justice only. In the case of Jesus and the plan of atoning sacrifice devised by the Trinity, this would not apply because of the unique nature of the unity of the Father and the Son and the unique situation of them being the ones owed the justice, yet absorbing the penalty themselves.

 

[JonC]

In post 37 @Martin Marprelate has some wise advise for you. Our minds and our language are only capable of expressing one thought at a time. You really do have a tendency to basically interpret scripture such that a statement by definition must exclude and contradict all other ideas if they are not all included in the passage you are reading. This applies to this discussion in that because Christ, at his death took the punishment and guilt due us and bore it in his own body on the cross. But in addition to that those who come to Christ are considered to have died with him, died to sin, been made new creations. Strong advocates of penal substitution like Horatius Bonar flat out say that "we died with Christ". So does G. Campbell Morgan. But they do not feel that this demands a distinction to where that necessitates that if we died with Christ then we cannot say Christ died for our sins and in our place. Nor do they suggest that if Christ did this that thus repentance is not a necessity. I would rethink all this.

No, @Martin Marprelate was trying to narrow down one verse as proof of his theology. I am saying that all of Scripture negates PSA.

1. God's judgment is presented as a future event (the Day of Judgment) throughout Scripture.

2. Throughout Scripture (OT and NT) forgiveness is based on repentance which is expounded upon in the OT and NT).

3. At judgment the wicked are punished (they are stiring up wrath for themselves for the Day of Wrath).

4. Forgiveness is based on repentance ( "a mind set on the Spirit" ) which o
is defined as "Christ in us". It is literally another act of creation.

5. We are predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ, to be righteous, to be glorified.

There is no need for God to have punished our sins as we will be recreated (made new creations, died to sin, conformed into the image of Christ) when God judges the world.


The crux is your philosophy of justice. That is the difference and ultimate disagreement between you and Scripture.

You hold a philosophy that demands every crime be punished (to borrow from Calvin, justice is avenging the law, punishing crimes).

Biblically God is just and justifies those who have faith in Christ (repentance) because those who have faith in Christ are made new creations in Christ, perfected by the time God judges.

But your philosophy makes demands on God, that while we will be just based on recreation God also has to punish every sin that the "old self" which does not exist at Judgment committed.

 

[JonC]

Maybe I'm wrong on this. I just read it in context with the earlier chapters and only looked for the plainest, most obvious meaning but I don't see why suddenly in chapter 18 the tone would shift to correct the judicial policy of the legal system of Israel.

I do not believe it as shifting but as correcting misunderstandings.

God had already told Israel that sins cannot be transferred, that it is evil to punish the righteous, to view the just as guilty, and to clear the guilty. Ezekiel 18 echos this.

I do not know but I suspect that their misunderstanding relates to legalism and not seeing that repentance is, ultimately, God's act of recreation expressed in the Promise.

We can look back and say they should have known this because so many times it is expressed (God giving them a new heart, God making them a new people, God performing a new act of creation, etc.). Even Jesus noted this as Nicodemus did not see it.


My argument is that Scripture as a whole (Genesis to Revelation) offers an entirely different view than PSA.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am saying that all of Scripture negates PSA.

That's an outrageous statement. Multiple scriptures indicate much more than repentance is going on in our forgiveness. If simple repentance was the only issue then Jesus would not have needed to bear our sins at all. And there was no functional need of the cross for our redemption - this would be accomplished at the asking by nothing but repentance. If what you are saying is true then the Bible could have been a one sentence pamphlet and saved everyone a lot of confusion.

 

[JonC]

That's an outrageous statement. Multiple scriptures indicate much more than repentance is going on in our forgiveness.

No, it is not outrageous at all.

What passage says more than repentance (turning from wickedness, turning to God, dying to sin, God giving us a new heart, setting our minds on the Spirit, etc.) is necessary for forgiveness?

There are none. The entirety of Scripture points to man being made a new creation in Christ, reconciled to God in Christ, Christ Himself being this reconciliation.

All of Scripture (Scripture as a whole) negates PSA. God does not punish the righteous, God never clears the wicked. Scripture shows how God is just and justifies the one who has faith in Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

What passage says more than repentance (turning from wickedness, turning to God, dying to sin, God giving us a new heart, setting our minds on the Spirit, etc.) is necessary for forgiveness?

Countless passages. Passages that refer to Jesus coming to save sinners. Those that say "and such were some of you. But now you are washed, now are you clean". "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world". John chapter 3 discussing Jesus being "lifted up" and that you had to "look" to him for salvation. None of those are necessary if simple repentance explains salvation completely.

Even if you try like you do above, to make repentance a lot more than repentance in that you add many other benefits of "repentance" which are really God's work like dying to sin, a new heart, a mind set on the Spirit. It's a gross double standard for you to claim that simple repentance is all that is required therefore atonement can have nothing to do with our sin being done away with because it's not found in the same exact scripture passage - yet you are at liberty to add all those other things which are not either found in the same passage as simple repentance. It just doesn't wash.

The entirety of Scripture points to man being made a new creation in Christ, reconciled to God in Christ, Christ Himself being this reconciliation.

Those who teach PSA do believe that Christ himself is the reconciliation. They teach that a union with Christ is essential for any of the benefits of Christ to be applied to a person in time. But they attempt to explain, using scripture, how Christ did this, why it was effective in making us right with the Father - and they feel it's important to do this because there is this over riding mission of Christ to go to the cross seemingly as a plan.

I assume that things we have revealed to us in scripture are there for us to legitimately look at. And I just don't think we have warrant to believe that our belief and repentance, though truly necessary as what is done on our part, completely explains the work of God and His Son in achieving our redemptions. I like looking at the ideas of recapitulation, Christ as victorious over Satan in a cosmic way, the concept of us being ransomed or bought with a price. All these things are helpful in helping us understand the redemption we have available to us in Christ.

Still, what is lacking in all those ideas above, is that you still have your own sin and lack of holiness as a barrier between you and God. This is plain in scripture and is beyond simple repentance on our part. PSA attempts to explain that aspect. I think we need to be careful about prying into things we have no right to, and sometimes men have made questionable statements about this and that includes some PSA advocates. Still, the scriptures and the descriptions of Christs work are there. The only continuous ordinance or sacrament for Protestants is about Christ's body and blood. That in itself should warn you about thinking that simple repentance fully explains your redemption.

 

[JonC]

Countless passages. Passages that refer to Jesus coming to save sinners. Those that say "and such were some of you. But now you are washed, now are you clean". "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world".

Those passages do not present a way God forgives sins without repentance and belief (faith).

It is through our faith (repentance and belief) in Christ that our sins are forgiven. Christ is the Object of this faith (we turn from wickedness, from the flesh but we also turn to Him).

Repentance and belief is not just turning away from wickedness, from ourselves, from a "mind set on the flesh". It is also a turning to (turning to God, to Christ, to a "mind set on the Spirit").

Part of the reason you may not see this was expressed by @Martin Marprelate when he summarized repentance as "saying we are sorry". It is more substantial than that. It is dying to sin and being made alive in Christ.

 

[37818]

. . . without repentance . . . .

Without repentance there can be no change of one's beliefs.

Mark 1:15, . . . repent ye, and believe . . . .

 

[JonC]

Without repentance there can be no change of one's beliefs.

Mark 1:15, . . . repent ye, and believe . . . .

Yep.

Repentance is not turning from wickedness to nothing (more wickedness). It is turning from wickedness to God. Repent and believe.

 

[DaveXR650]

Those passages do not present a way God forgives sins without repentance and belief (faith).

They say that something is being done by Christ beyond and outside of your repentance. (And please, don't try to poison the discussion by implying that I or Martin for that matter are saying that repentance is not needed. That would be an absurd conclusion for anyone who has read the above posts.)

Christ's death did something. While it may be true that a person doesn't have to be aware of what he did or how he did it, it seems it would be dangerous to deny that he did something on our behalf, or for us, or instead of us, in order to make simple repentance (on our part) a real way of salvation.

 

[37818]

Isaiah 53:12, . . . poured out his soul unto death: . . . .

John 19:28, . . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . . .

 

[Martin Marprelate]

According to the Scriptures, what is the full punishment that is due sinners who disobey the Lord and refuse to repent of their willful and evil deeds?

A fair question. @DaveXR650 has answered very well. Perhaps I can add just a few things more.
I think the key text is Romans 3:25-26. 'Whom God set forth as a propitiation.....' A propitiation is a an offering that takes away wrath. Puritan and other writers speak of a 'satisfaction' to God's justice. 'That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' Weknow that God is satisfied by the propitiation of Christ, because it was He who set Him forth. It is not for us to take issue with God and to say that Christ should have suffered more. Who are we to take issue with God?
'There is no greater fallacy than the argument which goes from man to God. It is a very common error today. People argue like that -- if this is true of us, they say, how much more so of God? As if God were in series with us!' (D.M. Loyd-Jones). If God is satisfied, who are we to argue with Him.

But there are three parts to the punishment of sinners in hell: pain, darkness and separation from God. The darkness is quickly dealt with. 'Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour' (Mark 15:33). By that time the Pharisees and others had probably got fed up with mocking and gone home; John had taken Mary back to his house; the other prisoners has fallen silent, and our Lord hung there in the darkness alone. But with reference to the pain, look also at Mark 15:23. Then they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to drink but He did not take it.' Why did He not take the wine mixed with myrrh? Because it was an analgesic. It would have given Him some slight relief from the appalling pain of crucifixion, and this He could not receive..
Finally, the separation from the Father. This, I believe, was the prospect that particularly horrified Him at Gethsemane. "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death" (Mark 14:34). And Luke tells us that he sweated blood as He prayed. Many Christian martyrs have gone to their deaths with greater composure than our Lord seems to have done, but they of course, were expecting God to be with them in their sufferings. The Lord Jesus was faced with enduring them alone.

But at the ninth hour, the sun came out again, and 'Jesus, knowing all things were accomplihed, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!"' Propitiation had been accomplished; God's righeous anger against sin and sinners had been satisfied. Just two things remained to be done. One of those was our Lord's actual death, which followed almost immediately; the other was the fulfillment of Psalm 69:21. 'And for My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink.'

I hope you will find that helpful.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you know of a passage that states God forgives sins apart from repentance?

Well, do you know of a passage that states that God forgives sins apart from Christ crucified? If silence is all you require, I could offer Romans 3:25-26 and Isaiah 53:10-11, but in fact, as we all know, faith and repentance are both necessities, as is Christ crucified.

Repentance and belief (turning from the flesh, turning to Christ) is the only way. Christ is the only Way.

I can agree with that with the addition of one word: Christ crucified is the only way.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But insofar as Isaiah 53 goes, we agree on the biblical text. We disagree on how your theology uses the text.

No. We disagree on how your theology misuses the text.
I am absolutely certain that unless Christ has paid in full the penalty demanded by God for our sins, we shall have to pay the penalty ourselves. But praise God, He has satisfied God's wrath against sin, so the point is moot
Whether or not we need to believe that in order to be saved I do not know. I leave that question to God who judges justly.

 

[JonC]

Well, do you know of a passage that states that God forgives sins apart from Christ crucified? If silence is all you require, I could offer Romans 3:25-26 and Isaiah 53:10-11, but in fact faith and repentance are both necessities, as is Chrsit crucified.

I can agree with that with the addition of one word: Christ crucified is the only way.

Christ IS the way. I never said otherwise. But it is through faith (repentance and belief) that we experience forgiveness.

But Christ crucified is not God forgiving you. On the cross God was recomciling mankind to Himself, not counting sins against man. But this reconciliation is in Christ.

When you sin you need to be forgiven, not just cry "Jesus died!".

But if you repent and believe the gospel of Christ you will be saved. God will forgive you of your sins. He will remove your old heart and put a new heart in you. He will remove your old spirit and put a new spirit in you. He will put His Spirit in you. He will recreate you - conform you into the image of Christ, make you a new creation in Him. Do that and you will live.