'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[jerusalem]

What kind of judge would knowingly sentence an innocent person to death? It is only the law of the unmerciful that immutably applies punishment for every crime. If a person truly repents, he should be forgiven. This is the Law of God (Luke 17:4; Mat.6:14-15). To punish Jesus in our place would require the Father to acquit the guilty and condemn the Innocent—to do that which He hates (Prov.17:15). It would require God acting contrary to His stated desire to forgive and bestow life on the repentant (Ezek.18:30-32). What hardness of heart can be instilled into the mind by the teaching that God does not remove punishment when one repents, but merely transfers it? The doctrine of penal substitution asks us to believe that the Father declared His own Son guilty of sin and worthy of death in agreement with His Son’s false accusers. No. The law of God releases the repentant from punishment—not by transferring it to someone else, but through the godly act of forgiveness.

Ok, who would like to throw the first stone? : )

 

[jerusalem]

You are too kind. Thank you. Very well, consider this:

Let us think for a moment what it means to be His witnesses. The Lord was put on trial; false witnesses were called upon to testify that He was truly guilty of crimes against God. On the basis of these accusations, Jesus was put to death. The Father called Him ‘My Righteous Servant’ (Is. 53:11) and raised Him from the dead. As Jesus knew in perfect faith, death could not hold Him. He entrusted Himself to the One who judges justly (1 Pet. 2:23). Now, how can we, as Christ’s disciples, be in agreement with Christ’s false accusers and proclaim Him guilty? Nevertheless, one cannot rightly be charged for sins one did not commit. If an innocent person is convicted at a trial, we call that a travesty of justice. A person is only guilty if he is. One is not guilty just because a judge proclaims him so. It would be like calling good ‘evil’ and evil ‘good’. The resurrection of Jesus was God’s vindication of His Son—overturning the sentence of an ungodly court. It was God’s unequivocal declaration of Christ’s righteousness at the cross, in spite of what man had pronounced Him to be.

Blessings!

 

[travelah]

Can you boil this down to something a simple man such as myself can understand?

 

[jerusalem]

travelah - I will have a try at that later. PS is very difficult to explain - even for those who claim to believe it - because it makes no sense. People believe it because they believe that is what the Bible teaches. It doesn't. When verses are quoted, context matters ...

(Back later)

 

[jerusalem]

PS has its roots in pagan propitiation through human/ child sacrifice. Micah wrote: "Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" (Micah 6:6-7).

Today, we can look back upon periods of apostasy in Israel’s history and shake the head in condemnation. The thought of slaying an innocent child to pay for one’s sins is anathema. So, how much more the concept that the Law of God legalizes and accepts the substitution of God’s Son for punishment in the place of the guilty? Would God do that which He regards as an abomination for others to do? Would God do that which is not right and punish His own innocent Child for our transgressions—for the sins of the soul? It is written: ‘It is not good to punish an innocent man’ (Prov.17:26, NIV). Also: ‘Do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty’ (Ex.23:7, NIV). ‘Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the LORD detests them both’ (Prov.17v15, NIV). Yet, this is just the error taught by many who hold to satisfaction and penal substitution theories of atonement. It is envisaged that God the Father, in order to save us from the penalty of our sins, had to satisfy His own law and honour by punishing the Holy One with suffering and death in our place.

J

 

[cygnusx1]

Well it really isn't as simple as God taking an innocent man and killing Him to save the guilty , such is the misleading idea that creates the OP.

It is not God crucifying the innocent instead of the guilty , such is at best only half of the truth .

Rather it is God made manifest in the flesh laying down His life in order to secure the salvation of a multitude that cannot save themselves.

This sacrifice is to placate , pacify , propitiate the righteous indignation of the very character of God , no darkness is in him and He cannot so much as look upon sin.

Another side to this blessed truth is that as scapegoat Christ did not remain untouched by sin , though remaining innocent in Himself , yet He became the very thing God hated , sin.

Gods verdict upon sin is seen by the saviour put to death without any sidestepping the issue of Justice .

Some today find it strange , even inconsistent how God would or could feel that way about sin, they balk at the idea of the innocent dying for the guilty , they seem unaware that Christ became sin , and see sin as only being worthy of forgiveness not punishment .

Truly the shock shouldn't be that God punished sin by death , but that Christ became sin for us.

Just as sin was transferred to Christ , so His own righteousness is transferred to a believer , is this cruel ? no , it is the very height of love.

 

[bling]

What kind of judge would knowingly sentence an innocent person to death? It is only the law of the unmerciful that immutably applies punishment for every crime. If a person truly repents, he should be forgiven. This is the Law of God (Luke 17:4; Mat.6:14-15). To punish Jesus in our place would require the Father to acquit the guilty and condemn the Innocent—to do that which He hates (Prov.17:15). It would require God acting contrary to His stated desire to forgive and bestow life on the repentant (Ezek.18:30-32). What hardness of heart can be instilled into the mind by the teaching that God does not remove punishment when one repents, but merely transfers it? The doctrine of penal substitution asks us to believe that the Father declared His own Son guilty of sin and worthy of death in agreement with His Son’s false accusers. No. The law of God releases the repentant from punishment—not by transferring it to someone else, but through the godly act of forgiveness.

Ok, who would like to throw the first stone? : )

Yes! You have done good to see that Penal Substitution (PS) is illogical and unjust.

Now let’s think about this further by answering a few questions:

1. Would the most wonderful parent have any personal “problem” with forgiving His rebellious child?

2. Does the most wonderful parent besides forgiving his rebellious child also see to the disciplining (punishing) of the child (if it is fairly possible) for all the benefits parental discipline provides?

If you just answer my simple questions we can work our way to an understanding about God’s and Christian’s suffering/punishment:

Are there something worse than a cruel bloody torturous death that you would go through? If so what?


Would you prefer to personally go through a torturous death than have your innocent child (assuming you have one) go through such a death because of your mistakes?


Did God suffer while Christ was on the cross? If so why?



How personally responsible do you feel Christ going through his torturous death on the cross? Do you feel like those in Acts 2:37 that had a death blow to their heart?

When you think about what you caused Christ to go through on the cross does it pain you like a mosquito bite or does it feel like the worst thing on earth that could happen to you? Why?

 

[jerusalem]

cygnus: "...He cannot so much as look upon sin."

It is written: ‘Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account’ (Heb.4:13, NIV)

Let's just get that out of the way. Of course God sees sin. He is burdened by it:

‘… you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your offences. I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.’ (Isaiah 43:24, NIV).

Even in the early church, the idea of Jesus actually becoming 'sin' in the eyes of God was disowned:

"…therefore having no sin of His own; nevertheless, on account of the likeness of sinful flesh in which He came, He was called sin, that He might be sacrificed to wash away sin. For, under the Old Covenant, sacrifices for sin were called sins. And He, of whom all these sacrifices were types and shadows, was Himself truly made sin. Hence the apostle, after saying, “We pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God,” forthwith adds: “for He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him….“Him who knew no sin,” that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, “hath made to be sin for us,” that is, hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him)" (Augustine, The Enchiridion, 41, P. Schaff, 1891).

I hope you see the distinction?

 

[jerusalem]

cygnus - Augustine: "Sacrifices for sin were called sins" (as quoted). - Jesus gave His life as a "sacrifice for sin". This is quite different to actually being "sin".

Nevertheless, from a worldly point of view, on the cross, Jesus was looked upon as sin. No doubt about it. However, this was not God's view.

David Stern renders 2 Cor. 5:21 as: “God made this sinless man be a sin offering on our behalf, so that in union with him we might fully share in God’s righteousness” (The Jewish New Testament).

The dual import of Paul’s words in this passage can be understood from the biblical context. It was not the view or judgement of the world that God accepted concerning the sacrifice of His Son. As a sin-offering, Jesus presented Himself as the untainted, pure and perfect offering to God for our sakes, that we, in union with Him, by God’s grace might share in His righteousness and thereby have our sins removed.

J

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnus: "...He cannot so much as look upon sin."

It is written: ‘Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account’ (Heb.4:13, NIV)

Let's just get that out of the way. Of course God sees sin. He is burdened by it:

‘… you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your offences. I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.’ (Isaiah 43:24, NIV).

Even in the early church, the idea of Jesus actually becoming 'sin' in the eyes of God was disowned:

"…therefore having no sin of His own; nevertheless, on account of the likeness of sinful flesh in which He came, He was called sin, that He might be sacrificed to wash away sin. For, under the Old Covenant, sacrifices for sin were called sins. And He, of whom all these sacrifices were types and shadows, was Himself truly made sin. Hence the apostle, after saying, “We pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God,” forthwith adds: “for He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him….“Him who knew no sin,” that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, “hath made to be sin for us,” that is, hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him)" (Augustine, The Enchiridion, 41, P. Schaff, 1891).

I hope you see the distinction?

You do realise seeing and hearing are used in two distinct ways in scripture ?

God cannot look upon sin with any approval , sin is hated by Him.

Habakkuk 1

[13] Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he

Christ became sin , thus says God word . And as such died as a criminal , "cursed is he who hangs on a tree"

The OT image of a snake being raised upon a wooden pole , a cursed creature must have seemed odd to the OT saints , to us it makes sense.

 

[jerusalem]

Yes! You have done good to see that Penal Substitution (PS) is illogical and unjust.

[/FONT]Would the most wonderful parent have any personal “problem” with forgiving His rebellious child?

Thanks. - No problem, should that rebellious child repent.



Our atonement is achieved for us through our being raised up in Christ, who gave Himself for us that we might know God through Him and the power of the resurrection. His one perfect offering is accepted for us, who are forgiven and follow Him in faith. In Christ, His righteousness avails as a covering for sin for all who now walk in the Spirit. Paul declared: ‘There is, therefore, no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit’ (Rom. 8:1, NKJ). His death brought to fulfillment and completion His whole offering to save us from our sins. The cross was the climax of His witness in the flesh for us that we might repent and be crucified in Him to the world, but live unto God. From the witness of His glorious resurrection, we look back to the cross and are drawn near, realizing that in Him is life, where death has no power, nor sin any place.

J

 

[hedrick]

I'm inclined to agree with the OP. Note the penal substitution is not the only idea of how Christ's death worked. Indeed it's not the earliest. See Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a summary of alternatives.

The NT surely says that Christ died for us. However the most explicit treatment I know of is Rom 6. It says that we are spiritually united with Christ. Through that union, he takes our sin and wipes it out. But he wipes it out through his resurrection, which is his victory over sin and death.

The problem is that the NT uses a number of images and metaphors for the atonement. One of them is "ransom." That's a fine metaphor for him dying for us. But when you start taking it so literally that you ask who the ransom was paid to, the results start getting troubling. One of the early answers was the the ransom was paid to Satan, who owned us because of our sin. PS assumes that the ransom is owed to God, because in his great justice, he can't forgive us without punishing someone. But Jesus' teaching seems to say that God both can and does forgive us without precondition.

So I see the atonement not as a way to let God forgive us without violating justice, but as the way that God regenerates us through our union with Christ.

It seems like not many people had a problem with PS between the medieval period and the 20th Cent. Today it's becoming increasingly common for Christians to be bothered by the implications of PS. Thus many people are returning to older concepts of the atonement. Interestingly, John Calvin used the explanation I just gave as his first explanation.

 

[jerusalem]

cygnus: "God cannot look upon sin with any approval , sin is hated by Him."

Thank you. Of course, God neither approves of sin, nor looks upon sin impassively.

As for the bronze snake, you mention, I hope you are not suggesting that the snake represented Christ? (I know this is sometimes said.)

J

 

[Arcoe]

God cannot look upon sin with any approval , sin is hated by Him.

But yet He decrees it for all men. How lovely.

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnus: "God cannot look upon sin with any approval , sin is hated by Him."

Thank you. Of course, God neither approves of sin, nor looks upon sin impassively.

As for the bronze snake, you mention, I hope you are not suggesting that the snake represented Christ? (I know this is sometimes said.)

J

Of course I am. The symbol chosen by God depicts a cursed creature , a creature cursed for sin.

A side of the cross many forget.

John 3

[14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
[15] That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.


Galatians 3:13
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree&#8221,

 

[cygnusx1]

But yet He decrees it for all men. How lovely.

Only by permission , which I know you agree with

 

[Clare73]

What kind of judge would knowingly sentence an innocent person to death? It is only the law of the unmerciful that immutably applies punishment for every crime. If a person truly repents, he should be forgiven. This is the Law of God (Luke 17:4; Mat.6:14-15). To punish Jesus in our place would require the Father to acquit the guilty and condemn the Innocent—to do that which He hates (Prov.17:15). It would require God acting contrary to His stated desire to forgive and bestow life on the repentant (Ezek.18:30-32). What hardness of heart can be instilled into the mind by the teaching that God does not remove punishment when one repents, but merely transfers it? The doctrine of penal substitution asks us to believe that the Father declared His own Son guilty of sin and worthy of death in agreement with His Son’s false accusers. No. The law of God releases the repentant from punishment—not by transferring it to someone else, but through the godly act of forgiveness.

Ok, who would like to throw the first stone? : )

Scripture would.
That's not what the word of God reveals in Ro 3:25-26.

For it matters not your human reasoning about it,
all that matters is what the word of God reveals.

And it reveals substitutional penal atonement.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

You need only to present consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical answers to the following questions on Ro 3:25-26 to see God's revelation of penal atonement.


1) What was it (subject) that God "passed over" (verb) the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?

3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

 

[Arcoe]

That's not what the word of God reveals in Ro 3:25-26.

For it matters not your human reasoning about it,
all that matters is what the word of God reveals.

And it reveals substitutional penal atonement.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

You need only to present consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical answers to the following questions on Ro 3:25-26 to see God's revelation of penal atonement.


1) What was it (subject) that God "passed over" (verb) the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?

3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

Is this all you know what to write?

 

[Arcoe]

Only by permission , which I know you agree with

I'm trying to follow you here Cygnus. What do you exactly mean by permission?

 

[cygnusx1]

Is this all you know what to write?

Take a look at yourself !