What is Penal Substitution Atonement

[JonC]

Let's not play with terms. By "blood" of the atonement is meant DEATH or shedding blood UNTO DEATH. There is no remission of sins without DEATH. That is the LEGAL basis for remission of sins. The term "sins" is the LEGAL consequence of violation of THE LAW. Christ's death was a LEGAL NECESSITY for SATIFYING the wrath of God. The wrath of God is his response to violation of HIS LAW. Hence, there is no such thing as "satisfaction" for sin apart from the death of Christ. His righteousness cannot satisfy the violation of the law. Only his death can satisfy the violation of the Law. Hence where there is no LEGAL satsifaction with regard to law there is no satisfaction with regard to sin.

You have confused your false accusation (the one I pointed out previously, a couple of times) with my position. I never denied that there is satisfaction for sin apart from death (the wages of sin are death and this is just more smoke on your part).

Is there a passage that states Christ came to restore, rather than to fulfill, the Law?
Is there a passage that states God punished Jesus in terms of being wrathful towards Him?
Is there a passage that describes God's justice as retributive justice?

 

[The Biblicist]

Try again. Those biblical words are what I believe. Scripture speaks of God's justice. You turn this into retributive justice. And you are right, it isn't biblical.

The just basis comes in as God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. God laid our iniquity on Him. But Jesus died to fulfill the Law - not to restore it but to nail it on a tree.

Please provide a passage stating Christ came to restore, rather than to fulfill, the Law.

The Standard Encyclopedia of Philosopy defines "retributive justice" as follows:

(1) that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment; (2) that it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve; and (3) that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoer.

All three of these definitions simply mean JUST or LEGALLY or MORALLY FAIR consequences fitting the crime. That is one of the primary purposes in giving the Law by God to establish JUST BALANCES and FAIR TREATMENT. With regard to sin the ONLY legally defined JUST consequence is death. Thus, any atonement must satisfy God's JUSTICE against sin. The death of Christ is necessary to satisfy God's justice against sin. However, it is unjust, unfair to require death for the innocent UNLESS they are acting as a LEGAL SUBSTITUTION as prescribed UNDER LAW as seen in the sacrificial system.

Your view of the atonement denies the legal necessity of Christ's death to satisfy the JUSTICE of God against sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have confused your false accusation (the one I pointed out previously, a couple of times) with my position. I never denied that there is satisfaction for sin apart from death (the wages of sin are death and this is just more smoke on your part).

Talk about smoke screen! This post is nothing but a smoke screen. Christ's death is the necessary LEGAL satisfaction against sin! There is no basis for a LEGAL satisfaction against sin IN the person of Christ unless he is acting as a LEGAL substitute for sinners as prescribed under law in the sacrificial system.

 

[JonC]

The Standard Encyclopedia of Philosopy defines "retributive justice" as follows:

(1) that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment; (2) that it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve; and (3) that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoer.

All three of these definitions simply mean JUST or LEGALLY or MORALLY FAIR consequences fitting the crime. That is one of the primary purposes in giving the Law by God to establish JUST BALANCES and FAIR TREATMENT. With regard to sin the ONLY legally defined JUST consequence is death. Thus, any atonement must satisfy God's JUSTICE against sin. The death of Christ is necessary to satisfy God's justice against sin. However, it is unjust, unfair to require death for the innocent UNLESS they are acting as a LEGAL SUBSTITUTION as prescribed UNDER LAW as seen in the sacrificial system.

Your view of the atonement denies the legal necessity of Christ's death to satisfy the JUSTICE of God against sin.

Yes, that is my point. You impose a sense of retributive justice on God that dies not exist in Scripture. At one time I held the exact same view (it comes naturally to us, I suppose, given our culture).

Retributive Justice does not merely mean "legal", or "under the law". It carries a specific view of punishment (retributive punishment). In other words, you believe that Divine Justice is retributive justice in that God cannot forgive a sin unless punishment is imposed for that crime. And you interpret every instance of the Law and of God's Justice within this artificial framework. You hold God to the standard of "an eye for an eye". Hence our disagreement.

 

[The Biblicist]

Is there a passage that states Christ came to restore, rather than to fulfill, the Law?
Is there a passage that states God punished Jesus in terms of being wrathful towards Him?
Is there a passage that describes God's justice as retributive justice?

First, no one, and I mean no one is claiming Christ came to restore the law. Neither did he come to do away or end the law as you claimed either. To "fulifll' means to "COMPLETE" it in the sense of HONORING IT by bringing it to its prophetic completion. Is the law contrary to the promises of God? Paul says "God forbid."

Second, you have been given a passage that explicitly states that God was please to inflict him as a sin offering.

Third, is there a passage that describes God's justice as just justice? That is the meaning of "retributive justice" simply JUST or FAIR consequences or what someone deserves according to Law. You are being totally deceptive by the use of "retributive justice" as that term simply means "JUST" or "FAIR" or morally or legally deserving. What in the world do you think the Law of God is about????? JUST TREATMENT - JUST CONSEQUENCES!

 

[JonC]

Talk about smoke screen! This post is nothing but a smoke screen. Christ's death is the necessary LEGAL satisfaction against sin! There is no basis for a LEGAL satisfaction against sin IN the person of Christ unless he is acting as a LEGAL substitute for sinners as prescribed under law in the sacrificial system.

Again, you are confusing "legal" with retributive justice. In a strict legal sense, the Old Covenant would have ended simply with the death of Christ (a covenant is effective for the life of the parties involved)....not that I believe this to be the atonement, but to illustrate how single-minded you are to your own presuppositions.

That said, I never argued against Christ's death being the necessary legal satisfaction against sin. I argued against Yeshua1's view that God punished with the punishment the lost will endure at Judgment. I argued against the idea God was being wrathful towards Christ as He suffered the judgment of death on behalf of mankind.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, that is my point. You impose a sense of retributive justice on God that dies not exist in Scripture. At one time I held the exact same view (it comes naturally to us, I suppose, given our culture).

Retributive Justice does not merely mean "legal", or "under the law". It carries a specific view of punishment (retributive punishment). In other words, you believe that Divine Justice is retributive justice in that God cannot forgive a sin unless punishment is imposed for that crime. And you interpret every instance of the Law and of God's Justice within this artificial framework. You hold God to the standard of "an eye for an eye". Hence our disagreement.

Yes, and all who hold to the truth believe that God cannot be Just without punishing sin according to His own just standard as revealed in Scripture. If you no longer believe this you are in serious trouble.

 

[JonC]

First, no one, and I mean no one is claiming Christ came to restore the law. Neither did he come to do away or end the law as you claimed either. To "fulifll' means to "COMPLETE" it in the sense of HONORING IT by bringing it to its prophetic completion. Is the law contrary to the promises of God? Paul says "God forbid."

Second, you have been given a passage that explicitly states that God was please to inflict him as a sin offering.

Third, is there a passage that describes God's justice as just justice? That is the meaning of "retributive justice" simply JUST or FAIR consequences or what someone deserves according to Law. You are being totally deceptive by the use of "retributive justice" as that term simply means "JUST" or "FAIR" or morally or legally deserving. What in the world do you think the Law of God is about????? JUST TREATMENT - JUST CONSEQUENCES!

Sorry, I misread one of your comments.

Yes, God was "pleased to crush him" for our redemption. It was God's will. This doesn't mean it made God gleeful or that God took pleasure in "crushing him" (God doesn't even take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked).

No, "retributive justice" is not simply "just or fair consequences". It focuses on the punishment (for punishments sake). Retributive Justice would allow one man to be punished for the sins of another man because the focus is not on the offender, or the offended, but on the punishment. It is not on restoration or redemption. Only a price paid. And it is unbiblical.

The reason you find it otherwise is because you presume retributive justice.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, you are confusing "legal" with retributive justice. In a strict legal sense, the Old Covenant would have ended simply with the death of Christ (a covenant is effective for the life of the parties involved)....not that I believe this to be the atonement, but to illustrate how single-minded you are to your own presuppositions.

That said, I never argued against Christ's death being the necessary legal satisfaction against sin. I argued against Yeshua1's view that God punished with the punishment the lost will endure at Judgment. I argued against the idea God was being wrathful towards Christ as He suffered the judgment of death on behalf of mankind.

Your view is self-contradictory and absurd and any objective reader can easily see that. You are confusing human law with God's law in your definition of "retributive" as though God has a double standard, and has an alternative just option with regard to sin. God is not the author of confusion but your view makes him exactly that. You have him in opposition to His law as though the Lawgiver can violate His own law and thus violate his own righteous standards. The law is legal and to claim that I am interpreting the law in a legal sense is double talk that is absurd as the law can only be interpreted in a legal sense because it is law by nature. You simply don't understand or recognize that the law is nothing more than "love" put in precepts whereas the same Law with regard to God's nature is nothing more than the same law put in principle.

 

[JonC]

Yes, and all who hold to the truth believe that God cannot be Just without punishing sin according to His own just standard as revealed in Scripture. If you no longer believe this you are in serious trouble.

Here is your flaw. God IS just. Scripture does NOT present divine justice as retributive justice. It is the PERSON and not the sin that is punished.

Under your system Christ never needed to die. God could have punished sin via animal sacrifices. But Divine Justice is not retributive justice as Christ became man to redeem man.

 

[The Biblicist]

This doesn't mean it made God gleeful or that God took pleasure in "crushing him" (God doesn't even take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked).

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief:"

No, "retributive justice" is not simply "just or fair consequences". It focuses on the punishment (for punishments sake). Retributive Justice would allow one man to be punished for the sins of another man because the focus is not on the offender, or the offended, but on the punishment. It is not on restoration or redemption. Only a price paid. And it is unbiblical.

You obviously don't understand God's Law. God's punishment for breaking his law is about JUSTICE not "punishment for punishment sake". God's punishment under law is not about "on the punishment" but on the HOLINESS of God as revealed in His Law. Your view of God's law is warped. Of course divine justice is not on restoration or redemption as that is not the function of God's Law. However, atonement has no meaning apart from satisfying divine justice as an atonement that does not satisfy divine justice against law is no atonement at all.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is your flaw. God IS just. Scripture does NOT present divine justice as retributive justice. It is the PERSON and not the sin that is punished.

Wrong again! God IS just and that is why his law IS just and therefore divine justice must be retributive or else it is not just or fair. It is the PERSON OF GOD that is offended by sin and it is HIS PERSON that must be satisfied by justice. God not only hates sinners but hates sin so it is not an either or as you imagine.

Under your system Christ never needed to die. God could have punished sin via animal sacrifices. But Divine Justice is not retributive justice as Christ became man to redeem man.

Let me see if I can follow your train of thought with regard to my position. My position is that the LAW requires justice against sin to be administered in order to satisfy the holiness of God and the lawful way for that to be administered is by the DEATH of the person and so His death is necessitated by my view and yet you image the death of the substitute for my sins is not required by my view???? LOL!!!

I know it must pain you to realize your view denies the necessity of Christ's death to provide satisfaction but that is just the way it is.

 

[JonC]

Wrong again! God IS just and that is why his law IS just and therefore divine justice must be retributive or else it is not just or fair. It is the PERSON OF GOD that is offended by sin and it is HIS PERSON that must be satisfied by justice. God not only hates sinners but hates sin so it is not an either or as you imagine.



Let me see if I can follow your train of thought with regard to my position. My position is that the LAW requires justice against sin to be administered in order to satisfy the holiness of God and the lawful way for that to be administered is by the DEATH of the person and so His death is necessitated by my view and yet you image the death of the substitute for my sins is not required by my view???? LOL!!!

I know it must pain you to realize your view denies the necessity of Christ's death to provide satisfaction but that is just the way it is.

This is why you could not come up with a passage to prove your point. You assume retributive justice the only possible form of Divine Justice because that's how we view things. Scripture teaches otherwise.

 

[JonC]

Wrong again! God IS just and that is why his law IS just and therefore divine justice must be retributive or else it is not just or fair. It is the PERSON OF GOD that is offended by sin and it is HIS PERSON that must be satisfied by justice. God not only hates sinners but hates sin so it is not an either or as you imagine.



Let me see if I can follow your train of thought with regard to my position. My position is that the LAW requires justice against sin to be administered in order to satisfy the holiness of God and the lawful way for that to be administered is by the DEATH of the person and so His death is necessitated by my view and yet you image the death of the substitute for my sins is not required by my view???? LOL!!!

I know it must pain you to realize your view denies the necessity of Christ's death to provide satisfaction but that is just the way it is.

Again, please stop with the false accusations.

If you read my posts and come back with the idea Christ's death was not necessary then you are a fool incapable of comphension. Again, the wages of sin are death. Death entered the world because of transgression. God laid our sin on Christ. How can you claim His death unnecessary?

Our argument is over what constituted this satisfaction. I believe it is Christ himself while you believe it is punishment taken. But more than that we disagree on the contextual framework in which to view the atonement.

 

[JonC]

@The Biblicist ,

Can we at least agree that what separates PSA from Substitution is this context of retributive justice (as you explained in your post about the demands of the Law)? Is this not what separates Luther from PSA, and what you see as my error?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Is there a passage of Scripture that presents Divine Justice as Retributive Justice?

I don't intend to post on this thread again. I will start a new one in due course. However, I want to make an observation about your debating practice.

A while ago, you introduced a definition of Penal Substitution which no one else had ever mentioned, and demanded that your opponents deny it. Now I observe that you have introduced a new phrase, "Retributive Justice," which again, no one but you (to the best of my knowledge) has ever used, and are accusing us of believing in it.

You are entitled, I suppose, to use whatever form of dialectic you choose. For myself, I would sooner be cross-examined on what I have written than on what I have not.

 

[Yeshua1]

@The Biblicist ,

Can we at least agree that what separates PSA from Substitution is this context of retributive justice (as you explained in your post about the demands of the Law)? Is this not what separates Luther from PSA, and what you see as my error?

Jesus was the Sin bearer, who took upon Himself the full wrath of God in the stead/place of those sinners that He died for. His death appeased the direct wrath of God, and when Jesus suffered upon the Cross, He endured for that time a separation from the father, felt forsaken, endured and experienced that as all lost sinners will, for how can He die for sinners and not experience as they would if he did not die in their place then?
The soul that sins, it must die, and the father treated Jesus upon the Cross as he will all lost sinners...
You seem to be denying that jesus took active wrath from God, and that he actually experienced what sinners will in judgement for sins.

 

[JonC]

I don't intend to post on this thread again. I will start a new one in due course. However, I want to make an observation about your debating practice.

A while ago, you introduced a definition of Penal Substitution which no one else had ever mentioned, and demanded that your opponents deny it. Now I observe that you have introduced a new phrase, "Retributive Justice," which again, no one but you (to the best of my knowledge) has ever used, and are accusing us of believing in it.

You are entitled, I suppose, to use whatever form of dialectic you choose. For myself, I would sooner be cross-examined on what I have written than on what I have not.

The definition I spoke of was suggested by yeshua1. He said that Jesus had to suffer the punishment the lost would at Judgment.

I did not coin the term "retributive justice". If you read of the defenses published in support of the Westminster Confession you will be exposed to the term quite often. It is the view that God's justice must be satisfied in terms of sins punished. Men like Calvin, Gill, and Knox believed in divine retributive justice.

Regardless of its use, it is descriptive of what you believe.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is why you could not come up with a passage to prove your point.

You are making no sense at all! I have placed before you Isaiah 53:6-11 and I underscored two passages to prove that it is God which is inflicting the suffering on Christ "for our sins." I pointed out the words "it pleased him" which you deny.

You assume retributive justice the only possible form of Divine Justice because that's how we view things. Scripture teaches otherwise.

Your view and definition of "retributive justice" is foreign not only to the scripture but foreign to my view. It exists only between your ears. There is no such thing as atonement where there is no satisfaction of DIVINE JUSTICE AGAINST SIN in behalf of sinners. The Law of God is HOLY and JUST as God is HOLY and JUST and that is the only kind or type of standard provided by the Law of God. Any other kind is purely from your imagination.

 

[JonC]

...
You seem to be denying that jesus took active wrath from God, and that he actually experienced what sinners will in judgement for sins.

Yes, that is what I am denying.

We are running short on time here. I would like closure on this one point so we can carry it forward (if we choose fit).

Can we at least agree that retributive justice is what separates PSA from Substitutionary Atonement? Is this not what separates Luther from PSA, and what you see as my error?