Romans 3:21-26 doesn't support penal substitution

[Arthur King]

I don't disagree with that. The book of Proverbs is mostly about the dangers of sin and folly. But Ecclesiastes and Job explore the fact that cheaters and evil people and fools sometimes do prosper, at least in this life. I still think that our main worry as people should be pleasing God and not offending him and that is sufficient motivation. In Hebrews in what people call the "hall of faith" there are a few people listed who suffered a lot of damage for following God. And it seems like in scripture the average church leader has a very short life span for a while there. I just think it's a weak approach to base coming to God on the fact that it is better for your life. It can be. I used to love listening to that radio program called "Unshackled", which was about common people who unruined their lives when they became believers. But depending upon where and when you live becoming a believer can just as well mean the opposite - as Apollyon warned Christian in Pilgrims Progress.

"I still think that our main worry as people should be pleasing God and not offending him and that is sufficient motivation."

I think the motivation discussion is a bit separate. My first question is what IS sin? I want to know the correct biblical definition. If it fits in our modern category of "therapeutic," well, then so be it. The Bible says what the Bible says.

My argument is simply that sin is a violation of God's created order, and therefore necessarily is destructive within the act itself. See attached chart on natural law morality vs divine command theory.

"I just think it's a weak approach to base coming to God on the fact that it is better for your life."

Depends on what you mean by "better for your life". You can't NOT seek what is better for your life. Every action you take is in pursuit of your own happiness. You can't NOT seek your own happiness. The goal is to align your pursuit of happiness with what will objectively make you happier. Only following God will ultimately make you happy, both in this life and the next. We are designed to glorify God by enjoying Him forever. And that pursuit, Jesus promises, is the cruciform life. As Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die."

It is penal substitution that leads to the prosperity gospel. "Jesus suffered in my place so I won't have to suffer." That is not Jesus. Jesus says we are to take up our cross and follow him.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Alas, I received no answer to the question. Yes or no? What does the Bible teach? Is sin intrinsically destructive and harmful or is it not? Is sin a violation of God's created order or is it not? Are we designed to love God and enjoy him forever or are we not?

We can talk about motives later.

The answers to your second two questions is yes.. The answer to the first depends on what you mean. If you mean that the world is no longer 'very good' as God designated it, and that it is fallen because of sin, the yes to that also.
But you seem to be arguing that sin is bad for us when God is taken out of the equation. To that my answer is two-fold: firstly, God is very much in the equation, and secondly you are taking the part of Job's 'comforters' in your analysis. They argued that Job was suffering because of his sin
Job 19:12-19. 'Though evil is sweet in his mouth, and he hides it under his tongue; though he spares it and does not forsake it, but still keeps it in his mouth, yet his food in his stomach turns sour; it becomes cobra venom within him. He swallows down riches and vomits them up again; God casts them out of his belly.
He will suck the poison of cobras........ He will not see the streams, the rivers flowing with honey and cream........He will get no enjoyment.
For he has oppressed and forsaken the poor; he has violently seized a house which he did not build.'

But Job contradicts him.
Job 21:7-16. 'Why do the wicked live and become old, yes, become mighty in power?
Their descendants are established with them in their sight, and their offspring before their eyes.
Their houses are safe from fear, neither is the rod of God upon them.
Their bull breeds without failure; their cow calves without miscarriage.
They send forth their little ones like a flock; their children dance. They sing to the tambourine and the harp, and rejoice to the sound of the flute
They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave.
Yet they say to God, "Depart from us, for we do not desire the knowledge of Your ways .......'

Asaph is also very much of Job's view. Psalms 73:2-14. Read it for yourself. It is only when he goes into the sanctuary, when he puts God back into the equation, that he understands (Psalms 73:18-20).

Even the apostles thought that sin brought immediate retribution on people. John 9:2-3). "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his father that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him."

Obviously there are some sins that often lead to illness in this life - alcoholism, drug addiction, fornication - but if you spend time, as I have done, in doing door-to-door evangelism, you will meet constantly with folk who have done very well for themselves, have no health or family problems, and really don't see why they should bother about God. This is the Common Grace of God. 'For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust' (Matthew 5:45). But as Job and Asaph understood, there is a time of judgment coming, though it is often not in this life.

Indeed, it is often those whom God will save who suffer most in this life: 'For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives' (Hebrews 12:6; Proverbs 3:11-12). Why was there famine in Israel and yet food in Moab in the time of Elimelech and Naomi (Ruth 1:1-2)? Because Moab's judgment awaits him without remedy at the end of time, while Israel is chastised to bring him to repentance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Actually, that is what the Bible says (the wages of sin is death; For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace).

Ah, that is true, and indeed, what I have been arguing, but only when you put God into the equation. @Arthur King wanted to take Him out.

if God never lifted a finger to punish sin, would sin itself still plunge sinners into destruction and misery? Yes or no?

 

[JonC]

Ah, that is true, and indeed, what I have been arguing, but only when you put God into the equation. @Arthur King wanted to take Him out.

No, @Arthur King did not take God out (you may want to read his entire argument).

The difference between positions is not about taking God out but where you place God.

You seem to be combining two things that Scripture doesn't - the wages of sin and the Christ-centered judgment "on that day". Somebody once explained it by saying that the product or wages of sin is death (not the wages of God for sin but the actual wages of sin) for it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, and that all judgment has been given to the Son.

I have also heard it explained that mind set on the flesh with death but that the mind of the flesh itself is death (as opposed to God punishing the mind set on the flesh with death).

You may, of course, dismiss those explanations. Many do. Often differences in positions result from sources we accept or reject. There are plenty of opposing views out there and each of us have to decide which is sound.

 

[DaveXR650]

. Every action you take is in pursuit of your own happiness. You can't NOT seek your own happiness. The goal is to align your pursuit of happiness with what will objectively make you happier. Only following God will ultimately make you happy, both in this life and the next. We are designed to glorify God by enjoying Him forever.

I guess my first question would be that if Edwards and Piper say that is it still true?

It is penal substitution that leads to the prosperity gospel. "Jesus suffered in my place so I won't have to suffer." That is not Jesus. Jesus says we are to take up our cross and follow him.

I disagree here because if anything, connecting all this to natural law would more likely lead to a cause/effect idea that would lead to a prosperity gospel. Penal substitution means you don't suffer the divine judgement due you that would be fatal to your soul but it does not teach that you don't escape the consequences of your sin or that bad things don't happen to people even if they are believers. That's just an incorrect premise.

Here again, you have two things going on. If you live in a time period of extended peace and no persecution, where the wisdom principles of Proverbs can operate, then yes, Christians tend to prosper and even get rich. If you look around, most of the problems people face are in some way the result of their own sin and folly and could have been avoided by following sound Biblical wisdom without even bringing up the issue of God's direct blessing. But there are many times in history, and many places even today, where being open as a believer is dangerous and statistically more likely to cause you problems than earthly blessing. Think Bonhoeffer, again.

By the way, thanks for that chart. I think natural law is in operation and to me, it makes sense that it would be if our understanding about God is in any way true. But it is insufficient by itself without God's revealed will. And there are times when God's revealed will puts the brakes on our tendency to solve things by only using our natural reason and understanding.

 

[Arthur King]

The answers to your second two questions is yes.. The answer to the first depends on what you mean. If you mean that the world is no longer 'very good' as God designated it, and that it is fallen because of sin, the yes to that also.
But you seem to be arguing that sin is bad for us when God is taken out of the equation. To that my answer is two-fold: firstly, God is very much in the equation, and secondly you are taking the part of Job's 'comforters' in your analysis. They argued that Job was suffering because of his sin
Job 19:12-19. 'Though evil is sweet in his mouth, and he hides it under his tongue; though he spares it and does not forsake it, but still keeps it in his mouth, yet his food in his stomach turns sour; it becomes cobra venom within him. He swallows down riches and vomits them up again; God casts them out of his belly.
He will suck the poison of cobras........ He will not see the streams, the rivers flowing with honey and cream........He will get no enjoyment.
For he has oppressed and forsaken the poor; he has violently seized a house which he did not build.'

But Job contradicts him.
Job 21:7-16. 'Why do the wicked live and become old, yes, become mighty in power?
Their descendants are established with them in their sight, and their offspring before their eyes.
Their houses are safe from fear, neither is the rod of God upon them.
Their bull breeds without failure; their cow calves without miscarriage.
They send forth their little ones like a flock; their children dance. They sing to the tambourine and the harp, and rejoice to the sound of the flute
They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave.
Yet they say to God, "Depart from us, for we do not desire the knowledge of Your ways .......'

Asaph is also very much of Job's view. Psalms 73:2-14. Read it for yourself. It is only when he goes into the sanctuary, when he puts God back into the equation, that he understands (Psalms 73:18-20).

Even the apostles thought that sin brought immediate retribution on people. John 9:2-3). "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his father that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him."

Obviously there are some sins that often lead to illness in this life - alcoholism, drug addiction, fornication - but if you spend time, as I have done, in doing door-to-door evangelism, you will meet constantly with folk who have done very well for themselves, have no health or family problems, and really don't see why they should bother about God. This is the Common Grace of God. 'For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust' (Matthew 5:45). But as Job and Asaph understood, there is a time of judgment coming, though it is often not in this life.

Indeed, it is often those whom God will save who suffer most in this life: 'For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives' (Hebrews 12:6; Proverbs 3:11-12). Why was there famine in Israel and yet food in Moab in the time of Elimelech and Naomi (Ruth 1:1-2)? Because Moab's judgment awaits him without remedy at the end of time, while Israel is chastised to bring him to repentance.

"you are taking the part of Job's 'comforters' in your analysis. They argued that Job was suffering because of his sin."

No. All sin is a type of harm. Not all harm is due to sin. Operations like surgery can do harm without being evil. Discipline can do harm without being evil. Punishment can do harm without being evil. Exercise, struggle, striving can do harm, without being evil.

"Even the apostles thought that sin brought immediate retribution on people."

I am not arguing that "sin brings immediate retribution to people." The self-destructiveness of sin, and God's punishments of sin, are many times two different things. Although the wrath of God at its worst is when God gives sinners over to their own self destruction. I don’t want to get too graphic here, but I think what lies behind the belief that God’s wrath is worse than human sin is, again, a failure to take sin seriously. It’s the belief that sin, by itself, is insufficiently destructive and miserable. God needs to punish in order that sin really result in the kind of destruction and misery it should. But God does not rape and sexually abuse people for His own pleasure like humans do. God does not sadistically torture people, like humans do. God does not sanction cannibalism, like humans do. If you are still not convinced, look up the case of the Black Dahlia murder and read about the horrible crime committed. Read about the crimes of the Golden State Killer, and his string of rapes and murders. Look up a summary of the Marquis de Sade’s 120 days of Sodom and read about the depravity described there. Human sin is worse than the wrath of God. God’s wrath is just and merciful and good because God is just and merciful and good. God’s wrath is not evil. Human sin is evil.

And the self-destructiveness of sin is often not felt immediately. But that is a subjective analysis. We are doing an objective analysis, and the objective analysis is that sin is destruction. It is a violation of God's created order. When we rebel against God, we rebel against our own design.

Of course God has wrath, but the self-destructiveness of sin is independent from and prior to God's wrath, and humans would need to be saved from sin regardless of God's wrath. So any proper atonement theology must deal with the central problem that humans face.

 

[kyredneck]

The key question is this: is sin intrinsically self-destructive? The early church said yes: sin is a violation of the created order and is intrinsically destructive in the act itself. The Reformed church, at least many in it, say no. Sin is only a problem because God punishes in response to it.

Excellent! Absolutely, sin is destructive, not only to self, but to the whole lump of humanity. God did not just arbitrarily make lying, stealing, adultery, bearing false witness, etc., 'bad to do', His laws against such makes it known that these are 'bad for us to do', destructive to self and society. Romans 7:7

This of course affects one's atonement theology. If sin is intrinsically destructive in the act itself, and God's wrath is not necessary to make it destructive and miserable for sinners, then wrath is not the central problem. You could take away wrath and humanity would still be in trouble. So you have to formulate the atonement logic around the actual, central problem humanity faces—which is not wrath.

Excellent articulation! Amen!

I think @Arthur King just hit the nail on the head with his last post. It seems that many Baptists today view the wages of sin as God's punishment on sin. But that is not how earlier Christians viewed it. Sin produces death, and we were in its grip.

Spot on.

 

[Arthur King]

I guess my first question would be that if Edwards and Piper say that is it still true?

I disagree here because if anything, connecting all this to natural law would more likely lead to a cause/effect idea that would lead to a prosperity gospel. Penal substitution means you don't suffer the divine judgement due you that would be fatal to your soul but it does not teach that you don't escape the consequences of your sin or that bad things don't happen to people even if they are believers. That's just an incorrect premise.

Here again, you have two things going on. If you live in a time period of extended peace and no persecution, where the wisdom principles of Proverbs can operate, then yes, Christians tend to prosper and even get rich. If you look around, most of the problems people face are in some way the result of their own sin and folly and could have been avoided by following sound Biblical wisdom without even bringing up the issue of God's direct blessing. But there are many times in history, and many places even today, where being open as a believer is dangerous and statistically more likely to cause you problems than earthly blessing. Think Bonhoeffer, again.

By the way, thanks for that chart. I think natural law is in operation and to me, it makes sense that it would be if our understanding about God is in any way true. But it is insufficient by itself without God's revealed will. And there are times when God's revealed will puts the brakes on our tendency to solve things by only using our natural reason and understanding.

"I guess my first question would be that if Edwards and Piper say that is it still true?"

Piper's entire ministry is called "Desiring God" and based on the idea of Christian Hedonism, that we are created to glorify God by enjoying Him forever. That we are to find all our happiness in Him, because that is where all true happiness is found.

The problem with Piper is that I don't think he consistently follows that theology regarding the negative (as I seek to do). If God is our true source of happiness, then to rebel against God is to rebel against our own happiness. Now, the question of "why don't people in rebellion against God all seem to be unhappy?" is a fair one, but the easy answer is simply: time.

"If you live in a time period of extended peace and no persecution, where the wisdom principles of Proverbs can operate, then yes, Christians tend to prosper and even get rich."

But I am not arguing that "prospering and getting rich" equals happiness. Happiness comes from purpose. The purpose of the Christian is the cruciform life. The cruciform life, participating with Christ in his crucifixion, is conceptually completely contrary to the idea of "substitution." A substitute does not say "take up your cross and follow me."

So, conversely, the nature of evil and unhappiness is ultimately purposelessness—that which is absent or against the purpose for which a thing has been created. Evil is not suffering, for people will voluntarily and even joyfully undergo all sorts of suffering if there is a good enough purpose to suffer it. Many of us, deep down, long to strive, struggle, and even suffer for a purpose we are certain is good. “Heroism” could be defined as “suffering plus noble purpose”. It is likely that certain types of suffering are even part of paradise: the suffering of a workout, the suffering of problem solving, the suffering of creating art, the suffering of competition in a game and losing the competition; all of those brands of suffering are not evil. Evil is when there is a destruction of our God-given purpose.

We see this in the Bible’s two great treatises on suffering: Job and Ecclesiastes. These two books attack the problem of suffering from opposite angles. Job is the suffering of a righteous man who loses everything. Ecclesiastes is the suffering of a wicked man who gains everything. But though they have opposite approaches, the essence of both of their suffering is the same: Purposelessness. Meaninglessness. Job says “I could endure all the pain and loss in the world if I just understood why God was doing this—if it didn’t seem so meaningless.” Solomon says “Vanity of vanities! All the pleasure in the world didn’t bring me happiness because it all seems meaningless.” The heart of goodness is purpose, and the heart of evil is that which is contrary to purpose.

"I think natural law is in operation and to me, it makes sense that it would be if our understanding about God is in any way true. But it is insufficient by itself without God's revealed will."

Careful not to confuse "what is good" with "how I know something is good." The natural law exists. But without God we may not know, or be able to know, essential facts about how it operates. We may not be motivated to live according to the natural law without God's rewards and punishments, but again, the question of motive is secondary to what is.

 

[Arthur King]

Ah, that is true, and indeed, what I have been arguing, but only when you put God into the equation. @Arthur King wanted to take Him out.

That only "takes God out of the equation" if you deny God as creator, which I don't. Do you?

To deny that "sin is intrinsically destructive" is to deny that God is Creator. It is a flat denial of Genesis 1.

 

[kyredneck]

"I guess my first question would be that if Edwards and Piper say that is it still true?"

Some are content to conform to 'other men's opinions' about scripture instead of forming their own opinions from scripture. They consider it to be 'orthodoxy'. Very important to them to 'conform' and fit into 'orthodoxy'.

 

[DaveXR650]

Some are content to conform to 'other men's opinions' about scripture instead of forming their own opinions from scripture. They consider it to be 'orthodoxy'. Very important to them to 'conform' and fit into 'orthodoxy'.

No. Some are just willing to admit that others may actually have said the same or similar thing before and you may not be as original as you thought. If I form an opinion from scripture and it turns out that Piper did too, and Edwards did before him can I not use it or benefit from it unless I came up with it myself? Please.

 

[DaveXR650]

But without God we may not know, or be able to know, essential facts about how it operates. We may not be motivated to live according to the natural law without God's rewards and punishments, but again, the question of motive is secondary to what is.

The first part is good. And that's why you need revealed scripture. The second part I just disagree with. The idea of doing God's will, just because you think it's God's will, is what you should endeavor to do. The fact that the principles of natural law and common wisdom point out that normally it is best for you as a human is secondary to your motivation.

 

[Arthur King]

The first part is good. And that's why you need revealed scripture. The second part I just disagree with. The idea of doing God's will, just because you think it's God's will, is what you should endeavor to do. The fact that the principles of natural law and common wisdom point out that normally it is best for you as a human is secondary to your motivation.

There is no distinction. Following the natural law is always what is best for you. You can’t do what is best for yourself without following the natural law. The first rule of the natural law is to love God and obey Him, for that is what we are designed to do. And you can’t NOT seek your own happiness. John Piper himself makes this clear in the first pages of Desiring God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God’s wrath is just and merciful and good because God is just and merciful and good. God’s wrath is not evil. Human sin is evil.

You will get no argument from me here. I don't think I have ever suggested that God's wrath is evil, or that human sin is not evil. The case I have been making is that sin is first and foremost an offense against God (Genesis 39:9; Psalms 51:4). If God were not bothered about our sin, then the wicked would be 100 times worse than they are now. So long as they get away with sin in this life, they would have no problems.

And the self-destructiveness of sin is often not felt immediately. But that is a subjective analysis. We are doing an objective analysis, and the objective analysis is that sin is destruction. It is a violation of God's created order. When we rebel against God, we rebel against our own design.

Again, no disagreement from me. But our rebellion is still against God.

Of course God has wrath, but the self-destructiveness of sin is independent from and prior to God's wrath, and humans would need to be saved from sin regardless of God's wrath.

So who is going to do the saving, if not God? Are you suggesting more education, more self-help groups, more anger management courses? I am not against any of these except that they have been shown not to restrain sin. The Gospel is the only hope for the world until the Return of Christ.

So any proper atonement theology must deal with the central problem that humans face.

The central problem that men face is that their sins have separated them from God (Isaiah 59:2), and there is nothing they can do to get right with Him by their own power. That is why the only hope is the Gospel.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, @Arthur King did not take God out (you may want to read his entire argument).

The difference between positions is not about taking God out but where you place God.

If God is placed anywhere but front and centre, He is placed in the wrong position.

You seem to be combining two things that Scripture doesn't - the wages of sin and the Christ-centered judgment "on that day".

It is no one else but God who said the the wages of sin is death. Genesis 2:17.

Somebody once explained it by saying that the product or wages of sin is death (not the wages of God for sin but the actual wages of sin) for it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, and that all judgment has been given to the Son.

It is God who kills and makes alive (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6). Your 'somebody' has too low a view of God.

I have also heard it explained that mind set on the flesh with death but that the mind of the flesh itself is death (as opposed to God punishing the mind set on the flesh with death).

This is a very poor exegesis of Romans 8:3-8. From v.5. 'For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace....... So far, so good, but why is it death to be carnally minded? The next verse tells us because it begins with dioti, 'because.' 'Because the carnal mind is enmity against [ESV 'hostile to'] God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.' The carnal or fleshly mind hates God and wants to be rid of Him, but God is not so easily dispensed with.

You may, of course, dismiss those explanations. Many do. Often differences in positions result from sources we accept or reject. There are plenty of opposing views out there and each of us have to decide which is sound.

I do reject them. IMO the correct understanding will always be the most God-honouring one. The view that you and @Arthur King are putting forward seem, if not to ignore God, at least to place Him away from the centre where He must always be.

 

[Arthur King]

You will get no argument from me here. I don't think I have ever suggested that God's wrath is evil, or that human sin is not evil. The case I have been making is that sin is first and foremost an offense against God (Genesis 39:9; Psalms 51:4). If God were not bothered about our sin, then the wicked would be 100 times worse than they are now. So long as they get away with sin in this life, they would have no problems.

Again, no disagreement from me. But our rebellion is still against God.

So who is going to do the saving, if not God? Are you suggesting more education, more self-help groups, more anger management courses? I am not against any of these except that they have been shown not to restrain sin. The Gospel is the only hope for the world until the Return of Christ.

The central problem that men face is that their sins have separated them from God (Isaiah 59:2), and there is nothing they can do to get right with Him by their own power. That is why the only hope is the Gospel.

Great! I think we are getting close to the same page. So, given the self-destructiveness of sin, what is God to do? The self-destructiveness of sin puts God in a Divine Dilemma, which goes as follows:

The Divine Dilemma is not, as penalty substitution would have it, that God is caught between His desire to save humanity and His promise to punish humanity. The Divine Dilemma is rather along the following lines: Given the self-destructiveness of sin, it seems that humanity is damned regardless of whether God acts in blessing or in wrath. Here is why I summarize things this way:

If God acts in wrath to destroy sin, then He will destroy humanity also, for all humanity is infected with sin. However, if God acts in blessing to restore sinful humanity, humanity will continually pervert His blessing through sin to their own increased torment. Imagine you are a parent of a teenage son who has a serious drug addiction. Every good that you do for him is used as a way to further the drug habit that is destroying him. If you give him time away from the house, if you give him an allowance, if you give him time alone, if you let him take the car out, all will be taken advantage of to obtain drugs. How do you be good to someone who only uses the good you do for them for their own harm? That is what God is up against. Whether God acts in wrath or blessing, humanity is destroyed either way.

God faces a similar dilemma regarding Israel. God has promised to bless all nations through Israel (Gen 12:3), but Israel is an exceedingly wicked nation, just as wicked as all the other nations. So how is God going to remain true to His promise to bless all nations through Israel, thus proving Himself just, yet not let the world be polluted by Israel’s sin? If God acts in wrath to destroy Israel, then he will fail to save the world through them, He will fail to be a just God who keeps his promises, and the rest of the nations will see God as incompetent (Exodus 32). But if God continually blesses sinful Israel, then Israel will pollute the nations of the world with their sin. So what is God to do?

What God could do is only bless those who are righteous, those who are uninfected by sin and who will not pervert the blessing and further sin’s destruction, and then only pour out wrath on sinners. That seems like what our basic conception of justice would have Him do: bless the righteous and condemn the wicked. But there are two problems with this. One: there is no one righteous. Not even one (Romans 3). Second: a perfectly righteous person does not need the blessing by which sin will be undone, because the person has no sin in the first place. So, only a righteous person can be given such a blessing of restoration, but only those destroyed by sin actually need it. The only answer, then, is that the blessing to restore the world goes to a perfectly righteous person who will undergo all of the destruction sinners have wrought upon themselves. And this is just what God sets in motion.

First, to destroy sin once and for all, God exiles humanity from the Tree of Life and consigns them to physical death whereby sin will be extinguished. That is the purpose of physical death; it is the means by which God destroys our sin. Physical death is how God cuts us off from the creation that we are continually perverting by our sin. It is like the parent that ceases to give allowance to the son that continually uses it to buy drugs. The Bible goes as far as to say that “He who has died is free from sin (Romans 6:7).” In order to be free from sin, we have to die. Physical death is the process by which sin is “condemned in the flesh” (Romans 8:3). This is why, even after becoming Christians, we still commit sins until the day of our death. It is the death of our sinful flesh that will finally end our sin.

Second, to restore us from sin and death, God gives humanity the promise and blessing of restoration, which He calls His covenant. This promise can only be fulfilled and blessing only be fully received by a perfectly righteous person, and so God Himself becomes the righteous person in Jesus Christ. Only those who have suffered sin’s destruction need to be restored, so Jesus undergoes our death with us. In sum, God institutes a death and resurrection process to destroy our sin and remake us in perfection, and He Himself undergoes this process with us in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, in Christ our sin dies and we are remade, when we participate in his death through confession, and participate in his resurrection through repentance, and when we undergo physical death and resurrection at the end of our lives.

 

[JonC]

If God is placed anywhere but front and centre, He is placed in the wrong position.
It is no one else but God who said the the wages of sin is death. Genesis 2:17.

It is God who kills and makes alive (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6). Your 'somebody' has too low a view of God.

This is a very poor exegesis of Romans 8:3-8. From v.5. 'For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace....... So far, so good, but why is it death to be carnally minded? The next verse tells us because it begins with dioti, 'because.' 'Because the carnal mind is enmity against [ESV 'hostile to'] God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.' The carnal or fleshly mind hates God and wants to be rid of Him, but God is not so easily dispensed with.

I do reject them. IMO the correct understanding will always be the most God-honouring one. The view that you and @Arthur King are putting forward seem, if not to ignore God, at least to place Him away from the centre where He must always be.

Not at all.

The traditional view places God front and enter as does Penal Substitution Theory. Your comment is not logical. Putting God where Scripture does not put God is not placing Him front and center.

Also, traditional Christianity is God honoring. IMHO it is much more God honoring than Penal Substitution for several reasons.

First, it honors God's righteous character. God remains just and the justifier of sinners rather than "just" by punishing the sins of the wicked in the just in order to acquit the actual sinner.

Second, it maintains God's immutable nature and the integrity of His Word. Rather than seeking a way that save dinners by transferring their sin upon Christ and acting as if the sinner was sinless and the innocent s sinner God's Word, under traditional Christianity, stands. The wages of sin remain death. And the wicked will justly perish at Judgment. That is something Penal Substitution lacks.

Third, traditional Christianity takes a much more literal interpretation of Scripture. Christ died for us, sharing our infirmities, reconciling man to God. And the ministry of reconciliation is taken more seriously because it is of eternal consequence.

Fourth, all movements between the Persons of God are in the same direction. The Father never turns His back on Christ but offers His Son, pleased to crush Him - to put Him to grief - for our redemption.

Fifth, traditional Christianity is more Christ-centered than Penal Substitution allows. Penal Substitution focuses on the wrath of the Father against sinful actions of man with His Christ being made what approaches nothing but a vehicle for God's wrath. God could have punished any target righteous enough (if there were any) under penal substitution. If a dog could be a suitable target for God's wrath against sin, it would have worked (a dog isn't, of course). But traditional Christianity holds that it had to have been God because Christ was reconciling man and God - not merely suffering punishment in our place.

Sixth, Penal Substitution does not necessitated Christ's actual death much less His death on a Roman cross. God could have poured out His wrath upon Christ in the Wilderness and our debt for sins would have been paid. Traditional Christianity, on the other hand, is dependent on Christ being handed over to the Roman government and necessitated His crucifixion. Penal Substitution does not actually need the Cross.

Seventh, insofar as our redemption is concerned penal substitution could have left Christ dead in the tomb. There is no redemptive purpose for the Resurrection. Traditional Christianity, however, not only needs the Cross but also the Resurrection for our redemption.

Eighth, penal substitution denies actual (and biblical) forgiveness as it holds that God had to first punish sins in order to forgive sins. That is not forgiveness.

Ninth, Penal Substitution elevates man over God in that human sin places a demand on God and an obstacle that must be overcome in order for God to accomplish His purposes. Traditional Christianity does not do this. The wages of sin remain death, but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus (both parts of that passage apply to man universally).

Tenth, penal substitution takes the new birth as an appendage to redemption. We were forgiven based on Christ suffering our punishment. There is no redemptive quality to recreating man. Traditional Christianity, on the other hand, takes the re-birth (born from above, made new creations in Christ Jesus) as an act of salvation. We are no longer among the wicked who will perish but are numbered among the elect in Christ and therefore escape the wrath to come.

Eleventh, penal substitution trivializes sin in the World and man when compared to traditional Christianity. The only serious consequence to man's sin under penal substitution is its control over God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Great! I think we are getting close to the same page. So, given the self-destructiveness of sin, what is God to do? The self-destructiveness of sin puts God in a Divine Dilemma, which goes as follows:

The Divine Dilemma is not, as penalty substitution would have it, that God is caught between His desire to save humanity and His promise to punish humanity. The Divine Dilemma is rather along the following lines: Given the self-destructiveness of sin, it seems that humanity is damned regardless of whether God acts in blessing or in wrath. Here is why I summarize things this way:

It's been a busy Lord's Day, and I only have time for a couple of observations. I will try to come back to this interesting subject tomorrow. The first is, who says that a given action is sin? In post #77 you referenced some particularly gruesome mass murders, but what do you think is the sin most frequently and most virulently condemned in Scripture? I haven't counted, but I am pretty certain that it is idolatry. The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a Hindu, and therefore ipso facto an idolator. But I am rather certain that whatever the people of Britain think of Mr Sunak's politics, very few are concerned that he bows down in private before a statue of Ganesha the elephant god and very few regard it as an issue. It has not (yet?) been a cause of his 'self-destruction. He appears to live, outwardly at least, a highly respectable life
Again, another sin roundly condemned in the Bible is pride. When the Bible lists seven things that God hates (Proverbs 6:16-18) the very first one is 'a proud look.' Yet I rather think that most people regard pride as actually praiseworthy, and certainly not 'self-destructive.'
My point is that whether something is sinful is not up for a vote. It is God who decides what is sinful and what isn't, and whether a certain sin is 'self-destructive' or not, what He says goes.

My second observation is that God is never in a dilemma. I am aware that you are drawing heavily on Athanasius for your theology and that he speaks of God being in a 'dilemma.' But to be in a dilemma is to be undecided or uncertain about something and God is never either of those things. I'm sure that Athanasius is using an anthropomorphism, as the Bible does at times, and as I hope you are.

As I say, I will try to comment further tomorrow as time allows.

 

[Arthur King]

It's been a busy Lord's Day, and I only have time for a couple of observations. I will try to come back to this interesting subject tomorrow. The first is, who says that a given action is sin? In post #77 you referenced some particularly gruesome mass murders, but what do you think is the sin most frequently and most virulently condemned in Scripture? I haven't counted, but I am pretty certain that it is idolatry. The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a Hindu, and therefore ipso facto an idolator. But I am rather certain that whatever the people of Britain think of Mr Sunak's politics, very few are concerned that he bows down in private before a statue of Ganesha the elephant god and very few regard it as an issue. It has not (yet?) been a cause of his 'self-destruction. He appears to live, outwardly at least, a highly respectable life
Again, another sin roundly condemned in the Bible is pride. When the Bible lists seven things that God hates (Proverbs 6:16-18) the very first one is 'a proud look.' Yet I rather think that most people regard pride as actually praiseworthy, and certainly not 'self-destructive.'
My point is that whether something is sinful is not up for a vote. It is God who decides what is sinful and what isn't, and whether a certain sin is 'self-destructive' or not, what He says goes.

My second observation is that God is never in a dilemma. I am aware that you are drawing heavily on Athanasius for your theology and that he speaks of God being in a 'dilemma.' But to be in a dilemma is to be undecided or uncertain about something and God is never either of those things. I'm sure that Athanasius is using an anthropomorphism, as the Bible does at times, and as I hope you are.

As I say, I will try to comment further tomorrow as time allows.

"The first is, who says that a given action is sin?"

God does. And he has established good and evil in the created order. "And God SAW that it was good." The word good there, "tov," is the same used for "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil."

"what do you think is the sin most frequently and most virulently condemned in Scripture? I haven't counted, but I am pretty certain that it is idolatry."

Correct. Idolatry is replacing God with that which is not God within the human heart. It is a disordered (destructive) act. God is not replaceable. To replace God with that which is not God is to destroy oneself. It is to, as Jeremiah 2:13 says "forsake the fountain of living waters" for "broken cisterns that can hold no water." What happens when someone does that? They die. As a result of the act itself.

As far as the Prime Minister, it is just a matter of time. God cannot be replaced by Ganesha.

"My point is that whether something is sinful is not up for a vote. It is God who decides what is sinful and what isn't, and whether a certain sin is 'self-destructive' or not, what He says goes."

There are no sins that are not self-destructive. That is impossible. God is not replaceable. You are correct that "whether something is sinful is not up for a vote. It is God who decides what is sinful and what isn't."

"My second observation is that God is never in a dilemma."

Yes on anthropomorphism. Using the same dilemma illustration that Athanasius, penal substitution advocates, and the Bible does.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Correct. Idolatry is replacing God with that which is not God within the human heart. It is a disordered (destructive) act. God is not replaceable. To replace God with that which is not God is to destroy oneself. It is to, as Jeremiah 2:13 says "forsake the fountain of living waters" for "broken cisterns that can hold no water." What happens when someone does that? They die. As a result of the act itself.

So is it a sin because God says it's a sin, or is a sin because we have decided that it's self-destructive. And do people die because of their self-destructive tendencies, or because God has pronounced, 'The soul that sins shall die'?

BTW, you should know that research in the UK has found that Indian immigrants, whether Hindu or Sikh, generally have better life outcomes than indigenous Britons. Their marriages and families are more stable and they do better at school and university. To write them all off as self-destructive really won't do.

Yes on anthropomorphism. Using the same dilemma illustration that Athanasius, penal substitution advocates, and the Bible does.

I have never used the word 'dilemma' in writing about God, and I can't recall ever reading the word in a Reformed book.