'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[cygnusx1]

This is a wording issue. The Romans passage is clear that Jesus died to reconcile us with God, which was my point. 1 Cor 15 doesn't have enough context to make it clear what Paul means.

Certainly it's a wording issue , every word in scripture is God breathed.

And the word says He died for our sins , not merely sin

I don't feel at liberty to change the words

 

[jerusalem]

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. We see that He came despising the shame and in perfect love cast out all fear.

In laying down His life in the flesh for us, He calls for us to be clothed with His righteousness that we also should have no fear of death. By the gift of the Holy Spirit, we have this assurance of faith. We are changed, renewed and appointed to everlasting life and peace in the presence of the Eternal God.

J

 

[jerusalem]

“Paul sees Jesus’ death as justifying us,” Hedrick. - I understand that you do not support PS, but I would like to comment on this idea:

One of the problems with Penal Substitution is that too many verses are taken out of context and are then presented as “proof” support.

Paul said: “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Rom.5:9). This is often taken to mean that the sacrificial death of Jesus justifies us through His being justifiably punished by God, as is supposed, for our sins in our place. This idea of propitiation is essentially pagan and could have had no place in Paul’s theology. It is also, of course, against any reasonable appreciation of justice and glosses over clear biblical statements forbidding the transference of guilt from one person to another or the condemnation of the innocent.

It is as though a ‘physical death’ is seen as all that matters to God to effect our justification. Someone just needs to die in order to be justified. - Oh, but that would mean that person is then justified and dead! - Problem. Solution: kill someone else who doesn’t deserve to be killed. Brilliant! - Er …no. God’s law forbids that! So does man’s God-given conscience, unless suppressed by some kind of warped logic that is founded on the belief that this is biblical (which it isn’t) and so must be true.

Let’s re-track. “Blood” does not just refer to “death” in the context of Romans 5. It refers to “life yielded up in death”, because, as it states in Scripture: “life is in the blood” (Lev.17:11). The blood symbolizes the sacrificial life of Jesus given up for us to effect our atonement. What kind of life is acceptable to God? – A life guilty of sin? - Of course not. A life deemed “sin” cannot be “at-one” with God and cannot atone for sin. The life offered up is in need to be undefiled, precious, pure and holy – such as symbolized by the blood of Christ (1 Pet.1:19). Paul wrote that: “…reconciled to God through the death of His Son … we shall be saved by His life” (Rom.5:9-10, NKJ). – Because what matters is “the life” that died in sacrifice – given up as: “…an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Eph.5:2, NKJ). His life was the ultimate offering of righteousness of which we receive for our justification. Unlike the condemnation resulting from the disobedience of Adam, by the grace of God, we receive “the gift of righteousness” through faith, and “justification of life” (Rom.5:17-18): “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom.5:19, NKJ). – Paul did not say ‘through His death in our place’ many will be made righteous. Jesus is contrasted to Adam. – The righteous to the unrighteous. Grace abounds “through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom.5:21, NKJ).

J

 

[bling]

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.

That was not atonement.

Yes a great deal did happen for us in and with the resurrection, but atonement happened with the sacrifice on the cross. After atonement, you have God’s forgiveness and then after forgiveness you have the rebirth, new life seen/felt in rising with Christ (sometimes refer to as regeneration).

His one perfect offering is accepted for us, who are forgiven and follow Him in faith.

Was Christ’s perfect offering also “accepted” for those that do not “follow Him in faith”, so where they forgiven and if not why not?

Who is doing the “accepting” and for what purpose?

In Christ, His righteousness avails as a covering for sin for all who now walk in the Spirit.

Why did Christ’s not covering the sins of those that do not walk in the Spirit? Did Christ not do something? If you say some “people” are not doing “something”, what do their actions have to do with Christ’s actions and results?

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.

Since some are not saved did Christ fail or was His work done completely and for all?

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. We see that He came despising the shame and in perfect love cast out all fear.



In laying down His life in the flesh for us, He calls for us to be clothed with His righteousness that we also should have no fear of death. By the gift of the Holy Spirit, we have this assurance of faith. We are changed, renewed and appointed to everlasting life and peace in the presence of the Eternal God.

J

You say lots of true and wonderful things, but your confusing what happened with the cross (atonement) and everything that happens with regeneration.

Some simple questions to think about:

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 about sending Christ 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?

 

[hedrick]

I'm not responding to most of what's here, because my position is clear by now and debate has degenerated to proof texts.

I commented before on this passage that Luther's fundamental insight was the God's righteousness is not his commitment to punish evil, but his commitment to justify us. However that does not capture the whole of Luther's theology, even as it is relevant to Rom 3:25.

Luther does believe in a wrath of God, though his statements on it are ambiguous. But it is God's "alien work", present only in the realm of the Law. Jesus did take all sin and die for it. See Martin Luther: Christ’s Duel with Sin | Awakening Grace (a quotation from his commentary on Galatians). However the usual form of penal satisfaction doesn't quite capture Luther's handling of Law and Gospel. It's not so much that God has to punish us before he can forgive us, but that he has to abolish the Law which demands punishment. But he does that through putting all sin on Jesus. So although I think the usual presentation of penal satisfaction misses the Law/grace dialectic of Luther, and PS is not a term normally used by Lutherans, it think it's fair to characterize Luther as supporting a kind of penal satisfaction. If any real Lutherans are reading I'd be interested in your comments.

I'm more inclined to agree with the author of The Rebel God: Romans 3:25. Despite the title of "Luther's reading," I'm concerned that the author may be giving us a less paradoxical explanation than Luther would. I do agree with the author that God has, in addition to his commitment to justify us, a commitment not to allow evil to triumph. Viewed outside of Christ, i.e. in terms of Law, this would commit him to punish sin. However Christ provides a different, non-legal, way to deal with evil: the way of new life. That's why Paul makes it clear in 3:21 that the way he is presenting is apart from the Law, and through faith in Christ.

 

[Clare73]

I'm not responding to most of what's here, because my position is clear by now and
debate has degenerated to proof texts.

That's an interesting way to "categorize" God's word written.

It reflects a preference for human reasoning over the word of God written.

I commented before on this passage that Luther's fundamental insight was the
God's righteousness is not his commitment to punish evil, but his commitment to justify us.

However, the NT reveals that it is both.

"He did this to demonstrate his justice (dikaiosune) on the sins committed beforehand. . .
he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time,
so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Ro 3:25-26)

The following from the word of God would be a "degeneration to proof texts" only for those who prefer human reasoning to God's wisdom.

Unfortunately you can't find Scriptural proof texts to define words. To understand things like
righteousness and atonement requires careful exegesis of all relevant passages.
That's not practical here.

I can. . .I have. . .it is.

Sacrifice of atonement doesn't mean what you think it does.

"Atonement" in NT Greek is hilasterion, the neuter of an adjective signifying "propitiatory."

"Propitiation" means "appeasement, satisfaction, reparation, amends."

If you prefer "expiation," its meaning is "appease, to make complete satisfaction."

In either case, Jesus' sacrifice made complete satisfaction, appeasement for the sin of sinners.

That is the meaning of Jesus' sacrifice of atonement presented in Ro 3:25-26, and with which I agree.

God's justice doesn't mean what you think it does.

Are you sure about that?

Let's begin our look at what the NT presents regarding God's justice with a look at what it presents regarding God's wrath.

Ro 1:18 - "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the godlessness (not glorifying or thanking God, v.21) and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.

Ro 2:5 - "you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed."

Ro 4:15 - "the law brings wrath."

Ro 5:9 - "how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! (This is what salvation is about, and what Jesus' sacrifice of atonement accomplishes.)

Ro 9:22 - "What if God, choosing to make his wrath and power known,"

Ro 12:19 - "leave room for God's wrath.

Ro 13:4 - "He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong doer."

So God's wrath is the execution of his righteous (just) judgment in punishment.

"Now let's look at what the NT presents regarding God's justice.

"Justice" in NT Greek is dike, ekdikesis, ekdikeos, and means "execution of a sentence, punishment, vengeance."

You will find this definition of justice used in Lk 18:7-8, 21:22; Ro 12:19, 13:4; 1Th 4:6 ; 2Th 1:8, 9; Heb 10:30;
1Pe 2:14; Jude 7; Rev 6:10, 19:2.

So Biblically, "sacrifice of atonement" and "justice" don't mean what you think they mean.

In the NT, Jesus' "sacrifice of atonement" means complete satisfaction, appeasement for the sin of sinners, and

in the NT, God's "justice" means execution of his just/righteous judgment.

That is the meaning of God's justice presented in Ro 3:25-26, and with which I agree.

 

[Butch5]

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? : )

You are correct, just one more man made doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

You are correct, just one more man made doctrine.

Yeah, ranks right up there with man not having an immortal spirit.

 

[Butch5]

Yeah, ranks right up there with man not having an immortal spirit.

Having an immortal spirit is a doctrine of men, namely the Greeks and the Gnostics.

 

[Arcoe]

Not according to the NT.

We are agreed that God visits his wrath on wickedness.

You say it isn't by obeying His Truths and doing good that we are saved from wrath, at least not according to the NT.

Romans 2:8, specifically states it is -
but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

 

[Clare73]

Having an immortal spirit is a doctrine of men, namely the Greeks and the Gnostics.

Not having an immortal spirit is doctrine of man.

 

[Clare73]

You say it isn't by obeying His Truths and doing good that we are saved from wrath, at least not according to the NT.

Romans 2:8, specifically states it is -
but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

We are all born under God's wrath because of our fallen human nature (Eph 2:3).

This states nothing about what delivers from God's wrath.

 

[Butch5]

Not having an immortal spirit is doctrine of man.

Made a claim you can't prove.

 

[Arcoe]

We are all born under God's wrath because of our fallen human nature (Eph 2:3).

This states nothing about what delivers from God's wrath.

If you would read ahead to Ephesians 5, Paul says you are deceiving us.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

It is because of these sins, that the wrath of God comes upon the disobedient, not being born with a fallen human nature. If you want to say it is the fallen human nature, these are vain words, and you are trying to deceive us.

And by the way, it IS obedience which delivers us from His wrath.

 

[Butch5]

If you would read ahead to Ephesians 5, Paul says you are deceiving us.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

It is because of these sins, that the wrath of God comes upon the disobedient, not being born with a fallen human nature. If you want to say it is the fallen human nature, these are vain words, and you are trying to deceive us.

And by the way, it IS obedience which delivers us from His wrath.

 

[Clare73]

Made a claim you can't prove.

Not having an immortal spirit is [post=62758685]Sadduccee doctrine[/post], which Jesus proved wrong at the link.

 

[Butch5]

Not having an immortal spirit is [post=62758685]Sadduccee doctrine[/post].

Then they were correct, take heed!

 

[Clare73]

If you would read ahead to Ephesians 5, Paul says you are deceiving us.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

It is because of these sins, that the wrath of God comes upon the disobedient, not being born with a fallen human nature.

Nice try at setting Paul against himself in Eph 2:3 and 5:3-6.

All Scripture is from God (2Ti 3:16), and God does not contradict himself.

So we know you are misinterpreting.

It is because of both Eph 2:3 and 5:3-6.
It's not either/or, it's both/and.

If you want to say it is the fallen human nature, these are vain words,

Well, at least we know where you stand on the word of God written.

"Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath." (Eph 2:3)

We are born with our nature.

and you are trying to deceive us.

'Tis setting the word of God against itself that is deception.

And by the way, it IS obedience which delivers us from His wrath.

Not according to the NT.

Eph 5:3-6 states only what leads to God's wrath, not what delivers from it.

What delivers from it is stated elsewhere in the NT, and it is not obedience.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

I see no problem here. Forgiveness not substitution, ok.

 

[Clare73]

Then they were correct, take heed!

Jesus disagreed [post=62758685]here[/post].

However, penal substitution is his revelation (Heb 1:1-2) which is the NT, given in Ro 3:25-26 [post=62647466]here[/post].