When Understanding the Cross

[JonC]

I told you why? Because nothing impure will enter into heaven.

You are wrong. Christ is not impure.

God has predestined us to be conformed into the image of Christ, made into a new creation.

I was not saying God punished Jesus for our sins. Obviously God punishing Christ for our sins would do nothing to purify us.

I was saying we have to die to the flesh and be made in the image of Christ.

 

[JonC]

I think you should answer some of my questions to you before you expect me to answer any more of yours.

I have answered your questions. Frankly I do not care if you answer mine. I posted them for others to consider more than for you to answer.

I really have no issue with people who believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Penal Substitution is easy to grasp because it reduces the Atonement to a very simple theory which is easily understood by most, particularly with Western worldview. But it is overly simplistic and takes liberties with God’s words to form a compact system.

What penal substitution theorists miss in Scripture is forgivable because they at least believe in some form that it is by Christ's blood we are saved. But for some within a Western culture, particularly earily on in the faith, this is the only way they can glimpse at least a part of the Atonement. It is top difficult for many to think outside of their worldview (it was difficult for me, initially).

That said, I do have an issue with penal substitution theorists who lean on that understanding. They end up being carried away by their philosophy and become enemies of God. I am also concerned because too many people have been taught the theory and have left the faith all together when they discovered it was not in the Bible.

Most people who hold penal substitution theory do so almost with a grain of salt. They believe Jesus was punished for our sins (which I also believe) but that's about it.

 

[atpollard]

I have found that many who now reject Penal Substitution Theory were led there by finding inconsistencies. They were taught this framework of the Atonement but at the same time they were told to study Scripture.
One I know of found it difficult to believe that God would have to punish on Christ to satisfy justice when he read in the Bible God telling us to put away our wrath and forgive when others sin against us.

I was challenged to PROVE the transfer of wrath from scripture, and did what any unreasonable person would do ... located every scripture containing the word "wrath" and read the chapter to see what was happening. I discovered WRATH was a FUTURE event to be inflicted on the guilty. I found God (over and over) just "forgives" as the alternative to wrath.

I came to understand that a JUSTICE that demands the transfer of WRATH negates MERCY, not fulfills it. By preserving WRATH and demanding it be "paid" by another, JUSTICE is preserved and overwhelms all other attributes. However, there is no room for MERCY ... the debt was not "forgiven", the debt was "paid in full". The Father literally OWES us salvation as a matter of justice ... anything else is "demanding double payment".

In contrast, MERCY is Jesus stating "Your sins are forgiven" or GOD (OT) stating "I will remember your sins no more". God doing what God calls us to do ("Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us"). The response to JUSTICE is entitlement. The response to MERCY is gratitude. Which is closer to "LOVE" ... the only thing that will not pass away?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have answered your questions

I really don't think you have. I asked:

Will you explain, please, exactly what you understand by 'Christ suffered for sins once for all time'? How is this not God punishing the righteous? And what do you understand by 'for sins'?

And also:

Will you please let me know exactly what your objections are to this statement of the doctrine which I have quoted many times on this board?

'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin' [taken from Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach (IVP, 2007. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6)]

If you actually have answered these questions, please accept my apologies and point me to where you have done so. The posts come so thick and fast that I may have missed it. Otherwise, I look forward to reading your responses.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are wrong. Christ is not impure.

I think you will find that I did not say that Christ is impure. But I am right that nothing impure will enter heaven. Do you believe that Christ has not entered heaven???? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

God has predestined us to be conformed into the image of Christ, made into a new creation.

Of course!

I was not saying God punished Jesus for our sins. Obviously God punishing Christ for our sins would do nothing to purify us.

Good. It is a small but important point that God did not punish Christ (He did nothing to deserve punishment), but punished our sins in Christ (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24).

I was saying we have to die to the flesh and be made in the image of Christ.

But not in order to be saved, but because we are saved. Salvation is by grace, not works.

 

[Zaatar71]

The Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles taught PSA, and wrote it for us. Many did not understand it since then, and many do not understand it today. The lamb slain from before the world was, is never popular among the religious world.
The Apostle warned of this in Acts20:
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.

27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Paul spoke about the Lamb that was slain being resurrected and ascended unto the heavenly Throne ruling in His Kingdom

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void to offence toward God, and toward men.

17 Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.

Yes Paul preached the cross;
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.


18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:


8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Yes, He preached the lamb slain, which was ordained before the world!

 

[DaveXR650]

I was challenged to PROVE the transfer of wrath from scripture, and did what any unreasonable person would do ... located every scripture containing the word "wrath" and read the chapter to see what was happening. I discovered WRATH was a FUTURE event to be inflicted on the guilty. I found God (over and over) just "forgives" as the alternative to wrath.

I do think that is where some Calvinists have made statements which go too far. Like when R.C. Sproul said that on the cross God hated Jesus. But transfer of wrath as meaning the transfer of the consequences of wrath is true. And when I look up "wrath" in scripture I do indeed find in time exhibitions of it, both from God and man as well as promise of future wrath and "a day of wrath".

I like your posts though because you illustrate how as people we are products of our times and our views of justice for instance as being an entitlement is modern and would be unintelligible to men from the early church or medieval era. I don't think PSA looks at us as entitled in any way to justice. The arguments that strict Calvinists used that we commonly read where it sounds like that - if you read in context were designed to refute Arminian "universalism", as Owen called it, and his logic was meant for that. Reformed theology of all types always views us as recipients of pure mercy and any talk of justice and payment of penalty or wrath is how God is working out reconciliation of his natural aversion to sin and sinners along with his overwhelming love for us and his mercy and compassion towards us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was challenged to PROVE the transfer of wrath from scripture, and did what any unreasonable person would do ... located every scripture containing the word "wrath" and read the chapter to see what was happening. I discovered WRATH was a FUTURE event to be inflicted on the guilty. I found God (over and over) just "forgives" as the alternative to wrath.

I came to understand that a JUSTICE that demands the transfer of WRATH negates MERCY, not fulfills it. By preserving WRATH and demanding it be "paid" by another, JUSTICE is preserved and overwhelms all other attributes. However, there is no room for MERCY ... the debt was not "forgiven", the debt was "paid in full". The Father literally OWES us salvation as a matter of justice ... anything else is "demanding double payment".

In contrast, MERCY is Jesus stating "Your sins are forgiven" or GOD (OT) stating "I will remember your sins no more". God doing what God calls us to do ("Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us"). The response to JUSTICE is entitlement. The response to MERCY is gratitude. Which is closer to "LOVE" ... the only thing that will not pass away?

This begs the question of why the Lord Jesus had to die on the cross, bearing our sins and the curse attached to them.
But with regard to your suggestion that God's wrath is only a future event, I refer you to Romans 1:18ff.
You should also note that the words 'anger' and 'wrath' are often (not always) translated by the same word - aph in the Hebrew and orge in the Greek. One should not assume that 'wrath' is an extreme form of anger, nor that 'anger' is a mild form of wrath.

 

[atpollard]

This begs the question of why the Lord Jesus had to die on the cross, bearing our sins and the curse attached to them.

Yes it does. I entered the study from a settled position that it was to satisfy the JUSTICE of GOD. It is not an unreasonable or self-contradictory "thesis". However, if it is true, does it not seem like something sufficiently important for God to bother mentioning "specifically" in 66 books of His Holy Word? That is what I went searching for and not only "did not find" ... I found the opposite. WRATH was NEVER EVER applied to the innocent to foreshadow its application to Christ, wrath is always applied to the guilty. Over and over God "just forgives" and calls on his people to do the same.

Blood and death are integral with reconciliation between God and Man, but WRATH and ANGER are never poured on the lamb or goat or dove or grain offering by the Priest making the offering. Were they?

My best speculation (and it is just my speculation) is that Jesus did what he did because THAT is what was required to make us a new creation in Him ... The RESULT is the reason for the ACTION. It is something internal to Christ (Jesus chose it) rather than something external to Christ (the Father demanded it). [shrug]

 

[DaveXR650]

To your eyes I understand I all over the place when it comes to my own view. The Early Church did not have a framework for the Atonement. They were not from the Western world. To you, they also were "all over the place".

Well, you say this and then quote 3 people who are all over the place. I would say again, they were all over the place.

You want a concise theory. There is not one that can contain the work of Christ.

Yes. My question would be then why is everything else acceptable as in a "multifaceted gem", except penal substitution? You are the one who claims Christ as Victor and Penal Substitution are contradictory, yet numerous writers from different eras speak of both aspects. I do not claim that penal substitution is the only thing permissible to say regarding the atonement.

 

[atpollard]

I like your posts though because you illustrate how as people we are products of our times and our views of justice for instance as being an entitlement is modern and would be unintelligible to men from the early church or medieval era. I don't think PSA looks at us as entitled in any way to justice. The arguments that strict Calvinists used that we commonly read where it sounds like that - if you read in context were designed to refute Arminian "universalism", as Owen called it, and his logic was meant for that. Reformed theology of all types always views us as recipients of pure mercy and any talk of justice and payment of penalty or wrath is how God is working out reconciliation of his natural aversion to sin and sinners along with his overwhelming love for us and his mercy and compassion towards us.

I would like to clarify the "entitlement" concept. It is more fundamental than modern.

I owe a debt ($200 or a cow or 1 year of military service) and I am placed in jail because of that debt.
My (brother, wife, lawyer) pays the debt (pays $200, delivers a cow, hires a mercenary to serve in my place).
I am now "entitled" to be set free from the jail. The Judge or person to whom the debt was owed is entitled to no "gratitude" from me for setting me free, they are required (by law) to set me free since restitution has been made and there are no grounds to justly punishing me.

I owe a debt ($200 or a cow or 1 year of military service) and I am placed in jail because of that debt.
The Judge or person to whom the debt was owed forgives the debt and sets me free.
I am now free from the jail, but no payment has been made. The Judge or person to whom the debt was owed is deserving of "gratitude" from me for setting me free.

If Jesus "PAID" my debt, then my debt has been PAID (the debt is no more).
If God had MERCY and "FORGAVE" my debt, then I owe Him gratitude for that MERCY.

 

[Charlie24]

I would like to clarify the "entitlement" concept. It is more fundamental than modern.

I owe a debt ($200 or a cow or 1 year of military service) and I am placed in jail because of that debt.
My (brother, wife, lawyer) pays the debt (pays $200, delivers a cow, hires a mercenary to serve in my place).
I am now "entitled" to be set free from the jail. The Judge or person to whom the debt was owed is entitled to no "gratitude" from me for setting me free, they are required (by law) to set me free since restitution has been made and there are no grounds to justly punishing me.

I owe a debt ($200 or a cow or 1 year of military service) and I am placed in jail because of that debt.
The Judge or person to whom the debt was owed forgives the debt and sets me free.
I am now free from the jail, but no payment has been made. The Judge or person to whom the debt was owed is deserving of "gratitude" from me for setting me free.

If Jesus "PAID" my debt, then my debt has been PAID (the debt is no more).
If God had MERCY and "FORGAVE" my debt, then I owe Him gratitude for that MERCY.

In God' economy man cannot pay the debt. Christ paid our debt by volunteering to take our place, God the Father demanded that debt to be paid.

We were bought with a price, the payment was death that we deserved.

The wrath of God is "the wages of sin is death." The One who never sinned and did not deserve death took that wrath in our place.

If I'm wrong then Lord forgive my ignorance, but that's the only way I can see it.

 

[DaveXR650]

I would like to clarify the "entitlement" concept. It is more fundamental than modern.

I would say this would be problematic in a couple of areas. First of all, I think we all agree that the use of "debt" whether of service owed or money, is useable but limited. Anselm was not wrong in his claims that God was injured in his honor and satisfaction was needed. That is part of the "debt" we owe. We have rebelled against God and incurred criminal penalties as well as classification as rebels. It cannot be overlooked that we have sinned against God's clear commands and we do know that this makes us rightfully subject to God's wrath.

We tend in organized human society, to try to set monetary value on some wrongdoing to serve justice and at the same time attempt to recompense the wronged party. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth sets up a framework for this. You knock my tooth out and I may desire your tooth be knocked out too but it is far better if I might be satisfied with monetary restitution. But don't overlook the fact that if you knocked my tooth out as a result of an assault you are still in legal jeopardy. And, in a way, this helps us understand penal substitution in that we believe the atonement as designed by God did fully satisfy all claims of God against us - but this was exactly for the purpose that you are concerned about. That is, that God wants to forgive, gratuitously, but has a holy and just nature that does not do this if it lets injustice go unpunished. God cares about the person assaulted who could not fight back and this is not overlooked, thus the limits on monetizing our debt to God's justice.

The obvious objection is that this seems to leave God as having to meet some standard of justice - which is ridiculous. But really, this is just humans attempting to describe God's nature as one who is concerned with justice. The satisfaction was due God himself, not Satan, as the early church fathers thought. And it it impossible for us to pay.

There is a sense where we could act "entitled" I think. We can boldly face an accuser, whether it be a human or Satan himself and say that we are bought with a price, all debt is paid, we are forgiven and in His kingdom, just like Christian did when confronted with Apollyon blocking his path. He dared to say to Satan, "Beware, I am on the King's highway". I simply cannot conceive of anyone saying to God, "Look, my debts are paid so you can't touch me". Although, I must admit that there are those who come close to that when they presume on God's grace and live like antinomians while claiming to be born again Christians.

 

[JesusFan]

Why would we need a new birth if God now has nothing against us?

And if we are predestined to be made into the image of Christ then when God judges the world we would have no sins against us by virtue of having died to sin and been remade in His image. God would have, in your theory, punished Jesus for our sins with no purpose.

The death of Jesus atoned and paid for all of my sin debt obligation to the father, but still need to be born again in order to have now a relationship and reconciled back to God

 

[Zaatar71]

In God' economy man cannot pay the debt. Christ paid our debt by volunteering to take our place, God the Father demanded that debt to be paid.

We were bought with a price, the payment was death that we deserved.

The wrath of God is "the wages of sin is death." The One who never sinned and did not deserve death took that wrath in our place.

If I'm wrong then Lord forgive my ignorance, but that's the only way I can see it.

You are 100% right. You see it as taught clearly in scripture. Philosophical speculation cannot replace truth revealed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would like to clarify the "entitlement" concept. It is more fundamental than modern.

I owe a debt ($200 or a cow or 1 year of military service) and I am placed in jail because of that debt.
My (brother, wife, lawyer) pays the debt (pays $200, delivers a cow, hires a mercenary to serve in my place).
I am now "entitled" to be set free from the jail. The Judge or person to whom the debt was owed is entitled to no "gratitude" from me for setting me free, they are required (by law) to set me free since restitution has been made and there are no grounds to justly punishing me.

I owe a debt ($200 or a cow or 1 year of military service) and I am placed in jail because of that debt.
The Judge or person to whom the debt was owed forgives the debt and sets me free.
I am now free from the jail, but no payment has been made. The Judge or person to whom the debt was owed is deserving of "gratitude" from me for setting me free.

If Jesus "PAID" my debt, then my debt has been PAID (the debt is no more).
If God had MERCY and "FORGAVE" my debt, then I owe Him gratitude for that MERCY.

Do you not perhaps think that you owe thanks to God for sending His beloved Son to suffer and die for you, to bring you to Him? The human judge you spoke about did nothing for you except execute the law. If God had done nothing for you except to execute the law, you would now be in deep, deep trouble.
Two things we must never suppose about the cross (I think this comes from John Stott): we should never suppose that on the cross the Lord Jesus extracted from God a mercy that He was unwilling to extend. Nor should we imagine that God inflicted upon Christ a punishment that He was unwilling to bear. The cross is the story of Father and Son (and Spirit) combining in the salvation of sinners.

 

[atpollard]

In God' economy man cannot pay the debt. Christ paid our debt by volunteering to take our place, God the Father demanded that debt to be paid.

The following are not found in my bible ...

"take (our/your/their) place"
"took (our/your/their) place"
"substitute"

... in any relationship to God, Christ or Justification. Where the words appear at all, the context is completely unrelated, like:

Matthew 27:7 [ESV] So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers.
Leviticus 27:10 [ESV] He shall not exchange it or make a substitute for it, good for bad, or bad for good; and if he does in fact substitute one animal for another, then both it and the substitute shall be holy.

So, I must call into question whether this teaching stands on the grounds of Sola Scriptura?
I do not call it "false", but I CANNOT affirm it to be "True" as stated with no scripture making the same claim.

 

[JesusFan]

You are wrong. Christ is not impure.

God has predestined us to be conformed into the image of Christ, made into a new creation.

I was not saying God punished Jesus for our sins. Obviously God punishing Christ for our sins would do nothing to purify us.

I was saying we have to die to the flesh and be made in the image of Christ.

The Father still has His wrath towards those of us before we were saved stored up, and it cannot just disappear, as that has to be appeased/atoned and paid for, THEN He is able to justify us and make us new creations in Christ jesus

Do you not perhaps think that you owe thanks to God for sending His beloved Son to suffer and die for you, to bring you to Him? The human judge you spoke about did nothing for you except execute the law. If God had done nothing for you except to execute the law, you would now be in deep, deep trouble.
Two things we must never suppose about the cross (I think this comes from John Stott): we should never suppose that on the cross the Lord Jesus extracted from God a mercy that He was unwilling to extend. Nor should we imagine that God inflicted upon Christ a punishment that He was unwilling to bear. The cross is the story of Father and Son (and Spirit) combining in the salvation of sinners.

Father MUST have His holy wrath dealt with, and Jesus agreed to take in our place what was due to us as sinners

 

[atpollard]

I would say this would be problematic in a couple of areas. First of all, I think we all agree that the use of "debt" whether of service owed or money, is useable but limited. Anselm was not wrong in his claims that God was injured in his honor and satisfaction was needed. That is part of the "debt" we owe. We have rebelled against God and incurred criminal penalties as well as classification as rebels. It cannot be overlooked that we have sinned against God's clear commands and we do know that this makes us rightfully subject to God's wrath.

Why do we forgive?
[and, no, I am not laying the groundwork for "Why does God ask something of man that He cannot do?" ... that is flawed as we are not like God so it is an apples to oranges comparison.]

But seriously, WHY does God expect us to "forgive" and why do we choose to "forgive"?
Like God, we were injured (in reality and in honor).
Like God, satisfaction is owed to us.
Those who have wronged us are subject to "our wrath".
Yet God calls us to forgive "seventy times seven times" ... and we do (at our best).
So WHY do we?

 

[atpollard]

Do you not perhaps think that you owe thanks to God for sending His beloved Son to suffer and die for you, to bring you to Him?

In your model, I am indebted to Christ and I am "squared" with God the Father. The Son offered MERCY and the FATHER owes me heaven (because I am sinless ... the wrath transferred and punishment given). I view that as a flaw rather than a feature.

That no SCRIPTURE clearly teaches transferred wrath, makes me suspicious.