PSA Justice vs Biblical Justice

[DaveXR650]

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.

As these endless threads play out, what you see as illustrated in the meltdown above, is the end result of what happens when you get pulled in to these vague philosophies that deny the centrality of the cross of Christ as actually being the instrumental cause of ones salvation.

You see the damage it does to individuals as well as churches who, in an attempt to modernize I guess, try to avoid the offense of the cross as being central to our salvation. It starts with almost an eerie "has God really said that?" concerning the atonement, where everything is nuanced and questioned, until you get to a blank and hollow Socinian idea that if God wants to forgive you he could have all along and ought to do so. You're already OK as you are so boldly go and declare your repentance and forget all the blood sacrifice stuff. After all, that's just a pagan holdover that God suffered the ancient Israelites to do until they could become more sophisticated. Those sacrifices didn't really mean what you thought anyway as our sophisticated explanation sort of details.

The fact is, what makes Christianity different from all the other religions, most of which do offer some level of order and wisdom in one's life if the teachings are followed - is the fact that in Christianity, God comes after us, satisfies all his righteous claims against us himself, and then pursues us with grace until we can no longer refuse to repent and believe. The only disadvantage to us is that we are left with absolutely nothing to glory in of ourselves. And the cross is central to this. And a careful study of how this part is done (and by that I mean the actual satisfaction of the righteous claims of God against us as individuals) will always lead us back towards what we now call penal substitution. It was always around, just not named.

 

[JonC]

...

As these endless threads play out, what you see as illustrated in the meltdown above, is the end result of what happens when you get pulled in to these vague philosophies that deny the centrality of the cross of Christ as actually being the instrumental cause of ones salvation.

I do not see what you consider a "meltdown".

I also do not see what you consider "vague philosophies". Your philosophy is clear, as is mine. The lack of clarity is not in either position itself (you simply lack understanding of my view).

I am not sure what position you are speaking of that "denies the centrality of the cross of Christ as actually being the instrumental cause of ones salvation."

I have stated repeatedly that it is by His stripes we are healed; the cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus, not counting sins against man; we were purchased by His blood; Christ's death by crucifixion on a Roman cross by Roman hands was essential; His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness...etc. Obviously the cross is central in my view.

I think you may be confused (confusing me with another member).

You see the damage it does to individuals as well as churches who, in an attempt to modernize I guess, try to avoid the offense of the cross as being central to our salvation.

I agree. We have to maintain any doctrine of salvation with the cross squarely at its center. I do not know of anybody on this forum who rejects this, although I do see PSA as minimalizing the cross.

It starts with almost an eerie "has God really said that?" concerning the atonement

I disagree here. We should ALWAYS test doctrine against God's Word.

It starts with almost an eerie "has God really said that?" concerning the atonement, where everything is nuanced and questioned, until you get to a blank and hollow Socinian idea that if God wants to forgive you he could have all along and ought to do so.

This is a strange statement.

I do believe that God can do anything He desires. He is God. But I believe the way He forgives is based on His own nature and desire (rather than bound by rules).

I do not know why you mention Socinianism. The Sozzinis held and taught the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement. They did not teach that God just forgives sins. They viewed forgiveness as based in obedience (following the moral examole set by Christ). I do not consider this theory a feasible Christian doctrine.

You're already OK as you are so boldly go and declare your repentance and forget all the blood sacrifice stuff.

?? This does not make sence.

It has nothing to do with my belief, but it also has nothing to do with Socinianism.

I have stayed my belief to you several times. Christ died for our sins, it is by His stripes we are healed; the cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus, not counting sins against man; we were purchased by His blood; Christ's death by crucifixion on a Roman cross by Roman hands was essential; His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

He is the Object of our faith and it is by repentance and belief (by faith) that we are justified.

Again, I think you confused me with another member (but I have never seen that belief expressed on the BB).

After all, that's just a pagan holdover that God suffered the ancient Israelites to do until they could become more sophisticated. Those sacrifices didn't really mean what you thought anyway as our sophisticated explanation sort of details.

Looking for a more sophisticated way is what gets people in trouble. Pagans viewed sacrifices as appeasing their gods, but the Israelites were not pagan. The significance of the sacrificed animals in the OT was not the killing of the animal but the cleansing of the blood in the Temple or Tabernacle. Read Deuteronomy and Leviticus. You can also look up Exodus and the blood applied versus the animal killed.

My argument is that the OT sacrifices mean what the text says they mean and they foreshadow the cross. That said, I do not believe they mean what you think they mean.

The fact is, what makes Christianity different from all the other religions, most of which do offer some level of order and wisdom in one's life if the teachings are followed - is the fact that in Christianity, God comes after us, satisfies all his righteous claims against us himself, and then pursues us with grace until we can no longer refuse to repent and believe.

I disagree. There are more significant differences between Christianity and pagan religions.

The only disadvantage to us is that we are left with absolutely nothing to glory in of ourselves.

I disagree that this is a disadvantage. The reason is those of us who are saved glory in God in the present and we will be glorified.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

And the cross is central to this.

Again, you have confused my posts with somebody else's words. As such you ate "fighting windmills". If you are interested then back and address whomever claimed that the cross is not central to our salvation. I have not seen it on the BB.

And a careful study of how this part is done (and by that I mean the actual satisfaction of the righteous claims of God against us as individuals) will always lead us back towards what we now call penal substitution. It was always around, just not named.

This is not true, otherwise every Christian would agree with PSA. The fact, however, is that for the 1st fifteen hundred years of the Church nobody claimed that God punished Jesus instead of us.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is not true, otherwise every Christian would agree with PSA. The fact, however, is that for the 1st fifteen hundred years of the Church nobody claimed that God punished Jesus instead of us.

The first sentence is very nearly true if you really think about it. The second sentence has been proven false over and over on these threads and in all the literature. I don't know what else to say except that PSA is not just that "God punished Jesus instead of us".

I have stayed my belief to you several times. Christ died for our sins, it is by His stripes we are healed; the cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus, not counting sins against man; we were purchased by His blood; Christ's death by crucifixion on a Roman cross by Roman hands was essential; His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

What makes it so useless to discuss this with you is that if you really believe that you have basically described penal substitution. Throw that definition out to any pastor you know and ask them. This actually makes me happy, not for the sake of argument but for your sake. Now how you can square that with your post #41 below I leave to you. I only put it up to let people compare.

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.

Listen very carefully. In my opinion, your stated beliefs that I just quoted put you firmly within any doctrinal camp I know of that officially goes by PSA as a valid explanation of the atonement. And for sure, they indicate a fellow believer. But the second quote puts you in a strangely contradictory camp that a lot of the theologians I know of say is apostate and incompatible with Christianity. You say that someone who is strongly believing in PSA is probably lost. They (and I), say that one who with full knowledge and understanding, opposes PSA is probably lost. I stand by that with the reminder that your stated beliefs above do not indicate that this is not really the case with yourself. I think that the fact that this appears contradictory is because of the dual way you express your beliefs and it's not my fault if I react strongly to what I believe are statements you make that oppose Biblical Christianity.

There is a difference between minimal knowledge required for salvation and what can be dangerous to delve into. I don't believe one needs any opinion about the atonement except that Christ died, and rose again, and now can forgive sins. That, along with the message that by believing you link yourself to those benefits comprises the gospel as often presented in scripture. But to attack essential theological truths (as oppose to not going there) can lead to dangerous paths, hence my references to Socinianism. An obvious example would be the virgin birth. It is not essential that you believe it otherwise many children would not be saved at an early age. But an adult, should he deny it and teach against it, with a full claiming of understanding scripture, is indeed an apostate. At any rate, unless there is some area that has not already been discussed I don't see any reason to continue.

 

[JonC]

The first sentence is very nearly true if you really think about it. The second sentence has been proven false over and over on these threads and in all the literature. I don't know what else to say except that PSA is not just that "God punished Jesus instead of us".

What makes it so useless to discuss this with you is that if you really believe that you have basically described penal substitution. Throw that definition out to any pastor you know and ask them. This actually makes me happy, not for the sake of argument but for your sake. Now how you can square that with your post #41 below I leave to you. I only put it up to let people compare.

Listen very carefully. In my opinion, your stated beliefs that I just quoted put you firmly within any doctrinal camp I know of that officially goes by PSA as a valid explanation of the atonement. And for sure, they indicate a fellow believer. But the second quote puts you in a strangely contradictory camp that a lot of the theologians I know of say is apostate and incompatible with Christianity. You say that someone who is strongly believing in PSA is probably lost. They (and I), say that one who with full knowledge and understanding, opposes PSA is probably lost. I stand by that with the reminder that your stated beliefs above do not indicate that this is not really the case with yourself. I think that the fact that this appears contradictory is because of the dual way you express your beliefs and it's not my fault if I react strongly to what I believe are statements you make that oppose Biblical Christianity.

There is a difference between minimal knowledge required for salvation and what can be dangerous to delve into. I don't believe one needs any opinion about the atonement except that Christ died, and rose again, and now can forgive sins. That, along with the message that by believing you link yourself to those benefits comprises the gospel as often presented in scripture. But to attack essential theological truths (as oppose to not going there) can lead to dangerous paths, hence my references to Socinianism. An obvious example would be the virgin birth. It is not essential that you believe it otherwise many children would not be saved at an early age. But an adult, should he deny it and teach against it, with a full claiming of understanding scripture, is indeed an apostate. At any rate, unless there is some area that has not already been discussed I don't see any reason to continue.

You miss the point of this thread. What makes PSA distinct is not the common language it uses, the passages it has in common, but the philosophy of justice it applies.

You claim to have found PSA in antiquity. But what you found was far from God punishing Jesus instead of punishing us to "forgive". You are just playing with definitions, and I am not interested in that game.

What this thread is about is philosophies of justice.

No offense here, but you are all over the place with your theology. It is like nailing jello to a wall as you seem to grasp at straws. You go from PSA being a moral law, to some financial issue, to a contractual obligation....from the ECF's to Boyd...from Owen to Socinian brliefs. I honestly do not think you know what you believe but instead are struggling to grasp religious slogans.

That is why I thought it would be better to narrow the discussion (that and I was not starting a thread different from the one just closed).

I thought that, if you chose to participate, it may help you focus on one topic rather than run around like a chicken with its head cut off. If other issues came up then we could start another thread.

So the topic is justice. I have brought up several views, including the legal justice philosophy of PSA. I brought up concepts Hebrew concepts of justice.


The reason to continue has nothing to do with you. I am not trying to change your mind. I want you to argue against my position and for PSA.

The reason is others read these threads (why, I do not know). My hope is that they will see our arguments and rather than choose a "winner" go directly to God's Word.

 

[JonC]

Back to justice.

PSA views justice (righteousness) as demanding that sins themselves are punished. This is sins divorced from the one who committed the sins when dealing with Christians. It is therefore a demand on God apart from the consequences the wicked must suffer.

Biblical justice is different. Biblically justice (righteousness) is the state God may use punishment to achieve. However God is not limited to punishment in order to achieve justice.

 

[DaveXR650]

You go ahead then Jon. The title of your thread is a statement that PSA is wrong. You have stated that you doubt the salvation of anyone who believes the concepts of PSA. I have stated that I doubt the salvation of anyone who rejects PSA after studying it closely and examining all it's elements. I don't see any reason to continue with you as you are quick to edit and delete, and don't directly respond to my points but keep repeating that I don't understand.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am interested to know exactly how you reconcile these two statements. I think it would be very helpful for me and @DaveXR650 to understand that. The first seems totally to negate the need for the cross; the second seems to be the doctrine of penal substitution -- not your theory of PSA, but the actual doctrine.

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.

I have stated repeatedly that it is by His stripes we are healed; the cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus, not counting sins against man; we were purchased by His blood; Christ's death by crucifixion on a Roman cross by Roman hands was essential; His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness...etc. Obviously the cross is central in my view.

 

[DaveXR650]

A good working definition of the principle leading the necessity of PSA would be this:
"God neither has willed, nor could have willed to forgive sins, without a satisfaction made to his justice".
That's from Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Turretin).

Those opposed have various objection to that including the following:
1. God is no less just if He chooses to forgive rather than punish sin. But God has in fact chosen to punish rather than remit the sins of the impenitent. Only those who place their faith and trust in Christ are forgiven of their sins.
2. God does not have to satisfy divine justice by some external principle of justice, or by the fact that his nature demands it, or, because he simply chose to (because he does not so choose).
3. "Satisfaction" is not only not necessary, but is incompatible with the remission of sins.
4. Remission entails that the creditor forgo satisfaction of the debt and that the debtor is forgiven of his obligation.
5. Hence it is logically incoherent to affirm that a creditor has both forgiven the debtor and the accepted satisfaction of the debt.
6. If the advocate of satisfaction says that satisfaction of the debt can be made by one person and remission be given to another, then this is false because is satisfaction has been made nothing is remitted to the debtor.
"There is no need for remission - indeed, remission is an impossibility - where the debt no longer
exists".
Conclusion: It is an impossibility that a debt be both satisfied and remitted at the same time.

 

[JonC]

I am interested to know exactly how you reconcile these two statements. I think it would be very helpful for me and @DaveXR650 to understand that. The first seems totally to negate the need for the cross; the second seems to be the doctrine of penal substitution -- not your theory of PSA, but the actual doctrine.

Sure. Just combine the statements.

The entirety of Scripture points to man being made a new creation in Christ, reconciled to God in Christ, Christ Himself being this reconciliation. How are we reconciled? Through faith in Christ. It is by His stripes we are healed; the cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus, not counting sins against man; we were purchased by His blood; Christ's death by crucifixion on a Roman cross by Roman hands was essential; His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.


Regarding your last sentence, it may help to look at doctrines rather than titles. So let's call my view PSA (for illustration).

i believe:

It is by His stripes we are healed; the cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus, not counting sins against man; we were purchased by His blood; Christ's death by crucifixion on a Roman cross by Roman hands was essential; His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

You say that is the definition of PSA.

I have no problem with that version of PSA.

It is....let's call it pseudo PSA (for lack of a different term) ... that is problematic.

Pseudo PSA (what I believe is really PSA) goes beyond what you just said is the actual doctrine (PSA) as stated above.

Pseudo PSA borrows from that "actual definition" but makes significant changes. It views God as transferring our sins from us and laying them on Jesus. It views God as punishing those sins laid on Jesus in order not to punish us. It views it necessary for God to punish sins (God cannot literally forgive sins).

But insofar as using what you call the "actual definition" of PSA, the two statements you quoted match perfectly. It is only with "Pseudo PSA" (again, what I consider an important part of PSA) that problems arise - not only problems between those two statements but problems with Scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

Switching to objections specifically to the penal aspect.
7. A bodily punishment like eternal death cannot be endured by anyone other that the sinner himself.
8. While monetary penalties can be legally transferred from one person to another since one person's money is as effective as the next.
"But to release the guilty and to punish the innocent in their place is not only completely opposed to any standard of justice: it is worse than inhuman and savage". If God wanted to punish our sins, then to demand the penalties from someone other than us would be contrary to justice properly so-called, namely , to uprightness and fairness, which are essential to His nature.
9. An innocent person can be afflicted with punishment from someone in authority over him in order to achieve a higher purpose, but such affliction cannot be regarded as penalty or punishment.
10. It is ridiculous and wicked to claim that the sins of others could be imputed to an innocent person.
11. Even if Christ rendering satisfaction for our sins were possible he did not do so - for the penalty each of us faces is eternal death, but Christ did not literally endure this.

@JonC. The above would be my understanding of your objections to penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

A good working definition of the principle leading the necessity of PSA would be this:
"God neither has willed, nor could have willed to forgive sins, without a satisfaction made to his justice".
That's from Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Turretin).

This is an excellent example of the judicial philosophy held by PSA. Francis Turrentin's philosophy is centered on God as a "Moral Governor" who must uphold the moral demands of the law.

My argument is that divine justice transcends moral justice. Biblically justice and righteousness are the same words. We are talking about God's own character, His nature. To reduce God's righteousness to a divine moral code is an error.

The law (moral offenses and issues) serve to show us our nature (our being...who we are). Justice (righteousness) is not upholding moral demands of the law. We sin because we - as beings - fall short of the glory of God. If an evil man perfectly obeyed the law (if that were possible) and met this moral standard this man would still fall short of God's glory because he is evil.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is an excellent example of the judicial philosophy held by PSA. Francis Turrentin's philosophy is centered on God as a "Moral Governor" who must uphold the moral demands of the law.

My argument is that divine justice transcends moral justice. Biblically justice and righteousness are the same words. We are talking about God's own character, His nature. To reduce God's righteousness to a divine moral code is an error.

Upholding the moral demands of the law is not less important than the base principle that sin cannot be overlooked. The given laws make this official and clear to men but Romans explains fully that we sin without the law as well as with it. And Jesus made it clear that the intent of the law was internal and total, not just the letter. I didn't see anything in PSA that "reduced God's righteousness to a divine moral code". But a divine moral code does indeed put it on paper so to speak and make it plain and official.

And I don't see any problem with using the Law, especially when understood in it's full context, as the basis for the explanation of Christ's work, as Paul did in Romans especially, but elsewhere too.

 

[JonC]

@JonC. The above would be my understanding of your objections to penal substitution.

Some of that may be valid, but that is not my objection to PSA.

My objection is, first and foremost, that it is not in the text of Scripture (it is what some believe is taught by Scripture, but not in the objective text). Since what is in the text makes since I object to PSA.

I do objection to the philosophy of justice upon which PSA us built. Parts of your post hint at this. But the reason is thar it is superficial. This is why the philosophy failed when implemented. It viewed justice as "avenging the law", punishment being necessary for crimes, the role of the judge being to meet this requirement of the law.

This is not the type of justice we see in Scripture. In the OT the law demanded Israrl to "cast out evil" (read Deuteronomy). Punishment did not have the criminal in focus but Israel.

I also objection because PSA redefines words. God cannot forgive sins and at the same time punish sins. That does not meet the definition of forgiveness.

There are over 1,000 verses telling us that, why, and how God forgives sins. There are no passages that support PSA "forgiveness".

Another reason I object is that PSA approaches redemption from the vantage of the Father, minimalizing the work of Christ (reducing Christ's work to essentually experiencing God's punishment).

By minimalizing sin, PSA minimalizes God's righteousness and holiness.


I would not argue against the reasons you provided, they just are not mine.

 

[JonC]

Upholding the moral demands of the law is not less important than the base principle that sin cannot be overlooked.

That's the thing Nicodemus could not grasp.

You are assuming God's law demands punishment. You are forgetting that Judgment is a future event. Those saved are predestined to be righteous, to be glorified, to be made in His image.

The law is literally fulfilled in us, even though this will be accomplished apart from the law.

 

[DaveXR650]

That's the thing Nicodemus could not grasp.

You are assuming God's law demands punishment. You are forgetting that Judgment is a future event. Those saved are predestined to be righteous, to be glorified, to be made in His image.

The law is literally fulfilled in us, even though this will be accomplished apart from the law.

Seriously, I'll leave this to you. That makes no sense to me at all. If one breaks God's law and then one day dies and faces judgement isn't that a future event? That those saved are to be righteous, glorified and made in his image is not part of the subject here.

The law is literally fulfilled in us, even though this will be accomplished apart from the law.

This is self contradictory. Those arguments I listed above are the arguments based upon legal theory and discussed by Anselm, Aquinas, and then later taken up on both sides by Socinus, the PSA reformers like Turretin and others. I thought that is what this thread is about.

Some of that may be valid, but that is not my objection to PSA.

All those points are about the legal theory, without using too much legal jargon, which I am not really good at. And yet they are not what you have been talking about?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Pseudo PSA borrows from that "actual definition" but makes significant changes. It views God as transferring our sins from us and laying them on Jesus. It views God as punishing those sins laid on Jesus in order not to punish us. It views it necessary for God to punish sins (God cannot literally forgive sins).

Fascinating! So what do you think Isaiah 53:6c means? 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' How is that not God 'transferring our sins from us and laying them on Jesus'? And 1 Peter 2:24? 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' How is our Lord bearing these iniquities or sins in Hs own body not Him taking the punishent for them?

'He was pierced for our transgressions.' That surely suggests the piercing of the Lord Jesus on the cross, doesn't it? And we know who was responsible for that, don't we (Isaiah 53:10; Acts 4:28)? And we know the reason for it, don't we? Love for sinners. 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son......'

There seems to have been a lot of discussion about what God can or cannot do. We know that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and that He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). I can't think that the Bible restricts Him in any other way. But I think it is more helpful to consider what He has done. That will tell us what we need to know.

 

[JonC]

Fascinating! So what do you think Isaiah 53:6c means? 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' How is that not God 'transferring our sins from us and laying them on Jesus'?

I believe it means that God laid the sins of man on Jesus.

I cannot assume it means that God took our sins from us and put them on Jesus because we are talking about iniquity rather than material things.

Also, God lays Christ's righteousness on us now. I do not believe this means Gos takes Jesus' righteousness away from Him and puts it on us. We bear His righteousness, but He remains righteous.

And 1 Peter 2:24? 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' How is our Lord bearing these iniquities or sins in Hs own body not Him taking the punishent for them?

It is Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins. The wages of sin is death. He tasted death once for every man. Since we are human it was necessary for Him to partake of our humanity - our flesh and blood - so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

My statement was that Jesus bearing our sins, and us bearing His righteousness, does not mean a transferring from.

'He was pierced for our transgressions.' That surely suggests the piercing of the Lord Jesus on the cross, doesn't it? And we know who was responsible for that, don't we (Isaiah 53:10; Acts 4:28)? And we know the reason for it, don't we? Love for sinners. 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son......'

Yes, the "piercing" or "wounding" does refer to the cross (probably the sum of His suffering, but at least the cross).

Yes, Scripture is clear that Satan is responsible but also that God sent His Son for this purpose. God was offering His Son, sending His Son. It was according to God's predetermined plan.

John 3:16 tells us God loved the world by sending His Son (it is how God loved the world). The "so" means "thusly".

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate.

I think the difference between our positions centers on how we view justice.

1. We both agree that those who are saved will be raised incorruptable. We both agree we will be made in the image of Christ, righteous and glorified. We both agree that we will stand before God as new creations in Christ.

2. We both agree that this act of recreation follows from the cross (you explained that God punishing our sins made this possible as an act of the Spirit while I view mankind reconciled to God in Christ as making this possible).

So we both agree that at judgment we will be judged righteous because God has predestined those He foreknew to be made in His image, to righteousness, to glory.

When God judges us, regardless of sins being punished, we will be righteous. We will literally fulfill the law (under the law the righteous are justified).


So, the difference seems to be how we are made righteous based on the cross. And the differences in how we view justice appears to be the crux of our disagreement.

1. You view the cross as God as punishing our sins laid on Jesus to satisfy the demands of the law.

2. I view the cross as God reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ (Christ as a "second Adam", being the type of man we will be recreated to be).


My observation is that your view seems to view the law as putting a demand on God regardless of man (if we are recreated and made righteous, we would not be punished under the law when Judgment comes).

What I mean is when God judges man we will inherit the blessings under the law because we will have fulfilled the law by actually being righteous. We are not now (we are a mixed bag now). But this judgment is not now, it is in the future. At judgment we will have been "refined as precious metal is refined in a fire". Nothing will be in us to punish.

 

[DaveXR650]

Fascinating! So what do you think Isaiah 53:6c means? 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' How is that not God 'transferring our sins from us and laying them on Jesus'? And 1 Peter 2:24? 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' How is our Lord bearing these iniquities or sins in Hs own body not Him taking the punishent for them?

How is it not? That's the whole point. There is no way it is not. Those two verses cannot be twisted in any way to avoid the fact of a transfer of our sins. What I don't understand is the constant repeating that this is not scriptural, when in fact the first and main argument is that it is.

It is Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins. The wages of sin is death. He tasted death once for every man. Since we are human it was necessary for Him to partake of our humanity - our flesh and blood - so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Once you say that it is Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins you have completed the definition of penal substitution. The only thing left would be to claim that this would not work or does not make any difference.

 

[DaveXR650]

It is Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins.

(you explained that God punishing our sins made this possible as an act of the Spirit while I view mankind reconciled to God in Christ as making this possible).

I thought you were agreeing with Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins.