Penal Substitution.....?

[Philip]

Did God say to Adam, "if you eat of the tree that is in the midst of the Garden, you shall surely be separated from Me and My life-giving energies"? NO!

He said "You shall surely die'?

Why do you deny this?

I don't deny it. Why do you misrepresent my position? I cited that very verse latter in my post. How is that a denial?

Notice that God said, 'You shall surely die.' He did not say, "I shall surely kill you.'

But it doesn't tell the whole story. They will be judged for their sins. They will be ultimately consigned to the Lake of Fire for their sins. They will be tormented forever for their sins.

I don't deny this either. However, it is likely that I disagree with your concept of that torment.

Who stated the consequences for disobedience? Was it not God?

Yes. It was God. He stated that Adam would die. He did not state that He would kill Adam.

And did He not follow it up with curses upon not only Adam and Eve, but also the ground and satan himself?

What say the Scriptures?

Genesis 3:9-18
Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; ​

I see where God curses the serpent. I see where God curses the ground. I do not see where He curses Adam and Eve.

Sin is much more than man choosing to separate himself from God, as you seem to want to redefine it. it is disobedience to God, an offense to God.

Are you familiar with the original meaning of the words chata and hamartia?

False comparison. We are not talking about violating natural laws, but disobeying a direct command of God.

Syntactically the statements are identical. Without inserting your own semantic content into the statements, how is it a false comparison?

Gravity is sovereign over you whether you want it to be or not. Sovereignty is not the issue.

Tell that cygnusx1. He brought up sovereignty.

The issue is that God gave Adam one command, and Adam disobeyed it. The naturlal consequence of that was not just separation from God and death, but also the Wrath of God.

That is not what God told Adam. He told Adam that He would die.

God has made it clear, "the soul that sins shall die".

No one disputes that God said this. However, it is equally clear that God did not say, 'I will kill the soul that sins.' You add that meaning to God's word.

Also that the wrath of God is kindled against all unrighteousness and sin, as well as those who commit sin.

No one disputes this either. However, I do dispute your concept of God's wrath.

That is most certainly judicial and forensic in nature.

Most certainly? That's pretty confident. Do you have Scripture that says 'God's wrath is judicial and forensic in nature'? If so, please present it. If not, how do you come to this conclusion? By your reason? I am not sure that I would classify that as 'most certain'.

 

[heymikey80]

There is no penalty for sin, at least not a judicial or forensic one. There are certainly consequences of sin. We do suffer under those, and so did Christ.

Search for "judgment" on Jesus' lips and tell me you really believe that. It's a law-court term.

Fair enough. Perhaps you can expand on what you mean by 'Christ paid a penalty through His Crucifixion.' Such as, to whom was the penalty paid and why did it have to be paid?

The penalty is paid for satisfaction what is right, not for the enrichment of some beneficiary.

All debts to the Good are this way.

And in the law-court metaphor as well. The Judge doesn't receive penalties he imposes. He imposes penalties because they are right.

What do you mean by 'an internal rule of justice'? Further, if it is more than we can understand, how can possibly conclude that this rule of justice requires a penelty.

I mean that God's nature follows a certain pattern that we call "just".

Humans apprehend ethics and morality, we don't comprehend it. Like many other areas of knowledge our ideas stretch out into ignorance.

We conclude as much because someone who does understand and who we trust, says the rule requires a penalty. What we do understand about morality also points to a penalty.

Okay, but redemption need not carry an idea of penalty.

How can one be redeemed from ... no punishment? Isn't that no redemption at all?

If it were wrong to be punished, then God should absolve us for nothing. If it were right to have the punishment, then the always right and good God has made a judgement against us.

This is not clear to me. I have been told many times in this forum and others that despite God's declaration we are still not righteous.

Because the word involved means to "declare righteous". It's the statement of affirmation made of someone for whom the charges are vacated.

Only by going with later religiously-charged uses of this word does it make the jump into actually becoming righteous. In Greek vernacular of the time it didn't mean that. It meant roughly, "acquit" in English.

For instance, the identical word is used of God Himself. It wouldn't there mean that God was a sinner, and then became righteous.

 

[depthdeception]

The penalty is paid for satisfaction what is right, not for the enrichment of some beneficiary.

All debts to the Good are this way.

And in the law-court metaphor as well. The Judge doesn't receive penalties he imposes. He imposes penalties because they are right.

But who determines what is "right?" In your analogy, it is not the judge; rather, the judge is merely giving the judgment in an appeal to what is right. However, this analogy is meaningless when applied to God. After all, that which God does (regardless of what it might be) is right; therefore, there is no necessity for God acting one way or another, for God does not have to act in a certain way in order for justice to be done. Rather, that which God does (regardless of what it is) is just.

I mean that God's nature follows a certain pattern that we call "just".

Then God is bound to something (the pattern to which you suppose God's nature alligns itself) other than God. If this is true, then God is not God, but rather that to which God is bound is God, which is absurd.

We conclude as much because someone who does understand and who we trust, says the rule requires a penalty. What we do understand about morality also points to a penalty.

Well, Western conceptions of justice and morality point to a penalty; however, there is nothing intrinsic to morality that demands such. Therefore, your entire point is moot, and is actually an uncritical acquiensence to the culturally determined conceptions of justice and morality that your particular paradigm proscribes.

How can one be redeemed from ... no punishment? Isn't that no redemption at all?

Hardly. Not only is redemption without penalty possible, but it is precisely the nature of the redemption which God through Christ in the cross reveals to humanity.

If it were wrong to be punished, then God should absolve us for nothing. If it were right to have the punishment, then the always right and good God has made a judgement against us.

You are missing the point! Salvation is not about being "absolved"--if it were, I would agree that redemption without punishment would be ridiculous. However, the problem of sinful humanity is not that it needs absolution from the "penalty" of sin. No, the problem is much more existential and ontological. By our sinfulness, we are separated from the life of God. No amount of "absolution" will remedy this problem. Rather, we need to be reconciled to God. This, then, is what Christ has come to do. If we merely needed absolution, God could have decreed this and it would have been so and just.

Because the word involved means to "declare righteous". It's the statement of affirmation made of someone for whom the charges are vacated.

This is a very narrow and limited view of what Christ came to do for humanity. Christ came to recreate humanity in the image of Christ, to reconcile us to God. If we merely needed to be "declared righteous," God could have done this without the cross. Since this is true, for God to further require the death of God is a very sadistic picture of God. THerefore, the only conclusion is that a penal conception of humanity's problem of sinfulness is not adequate to describe that which atonement was meant to accomplish.

 

[Philip]

Search for "judgment" on Jesus' lips and tell me you really believe that.

Yep. Still believe it.

The penalty is paid for satisfaction what is right, not for the enrichment of some beneficiary.

Why does 'satisfaction [of?] what is right' demand a punishment? Further, why is God bound to satisfy anything? Is it not the case that whatever God does is right?

All debts to the Good are this way.

Really? I believe I remember Christ telling a parable of a king who forgave his servent's debts. Where was the penalty for those debts?

And in the law-court metaphor as well. The Judge doesn't receive penalties he imposes. He imposes penalties because they are right.

I disagree. Whatever God does is right. It is by His actions that the standard of right and wrong are established. If He were to impose a penalty, it would be right because He did it. God is not bound to do anything by an external standard.

I mean that God's nature follows a certain pattern that we call "just".

I disagree. God's actions establish a pattern which we are bound to call 'just'.

We conclude as much because someone who does understand and who we trust, says the rule requires a penalty.

Can you point to a specific verse so that we may discuss it?

What we do understand about morality also points to a penalty.

That is not my understanding. In fact, I question if actions based on the avoidance of a penalty have any moral worth.

How can one be redeemed from ... no punishment? Isn't that no redemption at all?

At least when you wrap your argument in forensic thought, the concept of penalty is present. But redemption, no. Neither the English word 'redeem' nor its Greek counterpart 'lutroō' carry any concept of punishment. Both have the origin in the concept of paying a ransom. While the situation of a prisoner of war or a victim of kidnapping is horrible, we do considered them to be being punished. If they are redeemed by the payment of the ransom, we considered them rescued and free of their bondage, but we don't think of them escaping some penalty or punishment.

Because the word involved means to "declare righteous". It's the statement of affirmation made of someone for whom the charges are vacated.

For instance, the identical word is used of God Himself. It wouldn't there mean that God was a sinner, and then became righteous.

Then, by your logic, God is not actually just, only declared just, right?

 

[heymikey80]

But who determines what is "right?" In your analogy, it is not the judge; rather, the judge is merely giving the judgment in an appeal to what is right. However, this analogy is meaningless when applied to God. After all, that which God does (regardless of what it might be) is right; therefore, there is no necessity for God acting one way or another, for God does not have to act in a certain way in order for justice to be done. Rather, that which God does (regardless of what it is) is just.

Definitely.

Then God is bound to something (the pattern to which you suppose God's nature alligns itself) other than God. If this is true, then God is not God, but rather that to which God is bound is God, which is absurd.

No. It's inherent in the nature of God to be just, you said so yourself. So of course God will be just.

Well, Western conceptions of justice and morality point to a penalty; however, there is nothing intrinsic to morality that demands such. Therefore, your entire point is moot, and is actually an uncritical acquiensence to the culturally determined conceptions of justice and morality that your particular paradigm proscribes.

No, they're not alone. Western concepts point to a formalization of the penalty. But many, many cultures penalize those who do wrong.

Hardly. Not only is redemption without penalty possible, but it is precisely the nature of the redemption which God through Christ in the cross reveals to humanity.

Broaden the view of a penalty to its actual definition, and I think you'll find that's not true.

You are missing the point! Salvation is not about being "absolved"--if it were, I would agree that redemption without punishment would be ridiculous. However, the problem of sinful humanity is not that it needs absolution from the "penalty" of sin. No, the problem is much more existential and ontological. By our sinfulness, we are separated from the life of God. No amount of "absolution" will remedy this problem. Rather, we need to be reconciled to God. This, then, is what Christ has come to do. If we merely needed absolution, God could have decreed this and it would have been so and just.

I'm not missing the point.

I'm addressing the point raised.

This is a very narrow and limited view of what Christ came to do for humanity. Christ came to recreate humanity in the image of Christ, to reconcile us to God. If we merely needed to be "declared righteous," God could have done this without the cross. Since this is true, for God to further require the death of God is a very sadistic picture of God. THerefore, the only conclusion is that a penal conception of humanity's problem of sinfulness is not adequate to describe that which atonement was meant to accomplish.

Once again, with feeling. To address the point raised I can't say everything about the rest.

To say your idea of penal substitution isn't adequate to say what atonement does, well, that's fine. I've also pointed out your view of penal substitution is already limited by some restraints being placed on the words in your view. But penal substitution clearly is not all that the Atonement accomplishes, even in PS theologies. That burns a straw man.

The question is whether it is a valid representation of what happened, not whether it's all that happened.

I think it is.

 

[heymikey80]

Yep. Still believe it.

Describe how Jesus can use the term "judgment" without judicial penalty.

Why does 'satisfaction [of?] what is right' demand a punishment? Further, why is God bound to satisfy anything? Is it not the case that whatever God does is right?

Rather, it is the case that what is right, is the thing God inherently does.

So if we see God requiring satisfaction for sin -- sacrifice -- then we can conclude what God sees as right is sacrifice for sin. If we see God requiring restitution, we can conclude restitution is right. If we see punishment, then punishment is right.

We can't leap from, "Isn't God free to do it another way?" to "God does it another way." That doesn't even free God from us. It leaves us with a god who is no bigger than our thoughts; a god in our image.

Really? I believe I remember Christ telling a parable of a king who forgave his servent's debts. Where was the penalty for those debts?

I believe I remember the parable ending badly for the servant.

It was the king's prerogative, the king suffered fiscal loss thereby. However, the servant owed an entirely new kind of debt, one he was also unwilling to pay. And that servant ended up in prison the rest of his life.

I disagree. Whatever God does is right. It is by His actions that the standard of right and wrong are established. If He were to impose a penalty, it would be right because He did it. God is not bound to do anything by an external standard.

I agree with that. But the standard is not to the good or ill of God. Ethics doesn't work that way.

Ethics is not ego. It is not, "I'm king, so everything must benefit meeee!" That's a modernistic idea, and frankly it doesn't fit any pattern of ethics I'm familiar with in history -- except the one where ethics doesn't exist.

I disagree. God's actions establish a pattern which we are bound to call 'just'.

That's fine. But if so, He gave us a law which condemns us:

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
​

Can you point to a specific verse so that we may discuss it?

If you like. Romans 3:19, 31?

That is not my understanding. In fact, I question if actions based on the avoidance of a penalty have any moral worth.

At least when you wrap your argument in forensic thought, the concept of penalty is present. But redemption, no. Neither the English word 'redeem' nor its Greek counterpart 'lutroō' carry any concept of punishment. Both have the origin in the concept of paying a ransom. While the situation of a prisoner of war or a victim of kidnapping is horrible, we do considered them to be being punished. If they are redeemed by the payment of the ransom, we considered them rescued and free of their bondage, but we don't think of them escaping some penalty or punishment.

But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. Mt 12:36
​

Then, by your logic, God is not actually just, only declared just, right?

Nope. God is declared just because He actually does not sin. There's no "becoming" there. It's not a "becoming" verb. But you say "by your logic"; actually, that's by the logic of many New Testament researchers.

A person was "justified" when he won a case. Surely you can't think that the court case made the person just? He was only declared just by the court. There was no attempt to make the person just.

The oddity is how that applies to us. We're declared just, yet we clearly sin. And Jesus was condemned, yet He clearly had no sin.

 

[cygnusx1]

If you eat, you will die. Sounds like a natural consequence to me. God did not state 'If you eat, I will kill you.'

so how do men die ?
I mean if God has no part in the death of sinners (try reading the Law sometime) what exactly has happened to the nature of man that he should go from Union with God to seperation resulting in physical death ?
Surely man has come under a "law" the Law of sin and death (Romans 8:2)... all Laws have a Lawgiver.
what is the penalty for sin ?

[SIZE=+2]Ezekiel[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]18[/SIZE]
The Soul That Sins Shall Die

1 The word of the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge Jer. 31.29 ?
3 As I live, saith the Lord G[SIZE=-1]OD[/SIZE], ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
5 ¶ But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,
6 and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,
7 and hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
8 he that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,
9 hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, Lev. 18.5 saith the Lord G[SIZE=-1]OD[/SIZE].
10 ¶ If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things,
11 and that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbor's wife,
12 hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination,
13 hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

There are many instances of God Himself killing men who sinned , but usually it is through the Law ...... His Law!

'The man who falls off the top of the Empire State building shall surely die.' Does that sound like a judicial sentence or a natural fact?

No man can fall off any building and die ............ UNLESS he is under the law of sin and death .

Your anology breaks down when we see a sinless man .....
This scripture (used by Satan) clearly shows that The Lord could not suffer death ......... unless He became sin!

For He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways. They shall bear you up in their hands, lest you dash your foot against a stone. —Psalm 91:11, 12

 

[Philip]

so how do men die ?

Have you changed your mind and decided that this 'quibbling' is not sinful?

I am not a medical doctor, but it is my understanding that most deaths result from hypoxia

I mean if God has no part in the death of sinners (try reading the Law sometime) what exactly has happened to the nature of man that he should go from Union with God to seperation resulting in physical death ?

The separation of the two natures is what happened.

Surely man has come under a "law" the Law of sin and death (Romans 8:2)...

Yep. All men die because of sin. Romans 8:2 makes no mention of a penalty.

all Laws have a Lawgiver.

I am not familiar with that verse. Could you point me to the proper portion of Scripture.

what is the penalty for sin ?

Who said there is a penalty? You still have not demonstrated this.

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

I still don't see any mention of a penalty.

There are many instances of God Himself killing men who sinned

Yep, God many times has brought an end to the sinful ways of individuals. However, this is not a penalty. It is not an act of anger. I have quoted God's announcement of the Flood several times in this thread. He stated that He was acting out of sorrow, not anger. He does not describe the Flood as a punishment.

No man can fall off any building and die ............ UNLESS he is under the law of sin and death .

If you say so. This still does not suggest that death is a punishment.

Your anology breaks down when we see a sinless man .....

So, if Christ had been born thirty years ago instead of some 2000 years ago, and He fell of the Empire State Building, and slammed into the ground, He would not have died?

This scripture (used by Satan) clearly shows that The Lord could not suffer death ......... unless He became sin!

For He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways. They shall bear you up in their hands, lest you dash your foot against a stone. —Psalm 91:11, 12

Please tell me you are joking. Please tell me that you are not trying to make the same misuse of Scripture that Satan did.

 

[Philip]

Describe how Jesus can use the term "judgment" without judicial penalty.

You are aware, are you not, that the Orthodox do not share your idea of hell and torment? Once you have an Orthodox understanding of eternal torment, Jesus's use of the word 'judgement' has nothing to do with a penalty, judicial or otherwise.

Rather, it is the case that what is right, is the thing God inherently does.

Is the action right apart from God acting?

So if we see God requiring satisfaction for sin -- sacrifice -- then we can conclude what God sees as right is sacrifice for sin. If we see God requiring restitution, we can conclude restitution is right. If we see punishment, then punishment is right.

I agree with this with two caveats. First, you statement is entirely dependent on the conditionals. I do not agree that conditions are met. Second, I do not agree with your identifing sacrifice with satisfaction for sin.

We can't leap from, "Isn't God free to do it another way?" to "God does it another way."

I do not make this leap. It is my contention that God has reveal to us that He does it another way.

That doesn't even free God from us. It leaves us with a god who is no bigger than our thoughts; a god in our image.

Can we avoid the gross misrepresentation of eachothers' viewpoint?

I believe I remember the parable ending badly for the servant.

Yes, because the servent refused to show the same mercy he had been shown.

It was the king's prerogative, the king suffered fiscal loss thereby. However, the servant owed an entirely new kind of debt, one he was also unwilling to pay. And that servant ended up in prison the rest of his life.

And so it will be with us. If we do not show the mercy that we have been shown, we are in trouble. However, that does not change that fact that the king offer forgiveness to the servent without demanding satifaction of the debt.

I agree with that. But the standard is not to the good or ill of God. Ethics doesn't work that way.

Ethics is not ego. It is not, "I'm king, so everything must benefit meeee!" That's a modernistic idea, and frankly it doesn't fit any pattern of ethics I'm familiar with in history -- except the one where ethics doesn't exist.

I fail to see how this is related to my comment. Perhaps you can restate it.

That's fine. But if so, He gave us a law which condemns us:

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
​

If you like. Romans 3:19, 31?

The third chapter of Romans is not about individual salvation. Rather, it is a demonstration of two facts. First, the Jews are no better than the Gentiles. Second, both are acceptable to God.

But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. Mt 12:36
​

Is this just a random quotation, or are you accussing me of careless words? If it is the latter, why don't you demonstrate how my understanding of the word 'redeem' is incorrect. That way we can all be edified. If it is the former, then I would like to submit this verse:

Numbers 2:16
"The total of the numbered men of the camp of Reuben: 151,450 by their armies. And they shall set out second.​

A person was "justified" when he won a case. Surely you can't think that the court case made the person just? He was only declared just by the court. There was no attempt to make the person just.

Before continuing, I just want to be sure that we are both discussing the word dikaioō

 

[cygnusx1]

God's anger and wrath against sin. (not merely sorrow)

Of The Anger And Wrath Of God.
​

Besides the love and kindness of God, his grace, favour, and good will, his mercy, pity, and compassion; and his longsuffering and forbearance; which flow from the goodness of his nature; there are other things to be considered, which may come under the notion of affections; as anger, wrath, hatred, &c. The anger and wrath of God are often used promiscuously in Scripture, to signify the same thing, and yet they sometimes seem to be distinct; and according to our notion of them, as in men, they may be distinguished: anger is a lower and lesser degree of wrath, and wrath is the height of anger; and accordingly I shall distinctly consider them, as in God.

1. The Anger of God. And shall, first, show that it belongs to God; and in what sense, and on what account. And, secondly, with whom he is angry; or on whom his anger is exercised.
1a. First, That Anger belongs to God, or may be predicated of him. This is denied by some philosophers of the Cynic and Stoic sects, because it is a passion; they allow grace, good will, and beneficence in God to men, but not anger; this they suppose to be a weakness, and even a sort of madness[1], and what is unbecoming a wise and good man, and much more unbecoming Deity. The Epicureans deny that either is in God; neither favour and good will, nor anger and wrath[2]; for they imagine he has no concern in the affairs of men, and neither regards their good actions, nor their bad ones; and so is neither pleased nor displeased with them; and is neither kind and favourable to them; nor is angry with them, nor resents what is done by them. But the scriptures everywhere ascribe anger to God; and often speak of it, as being kindled against particular persons, and against whole bodies of men; and give many particular instances of it: to produce the whole proof of this, would be to transcribe a great part of the Bible. But then anger is to be considered not as a passion, or affection in God, as it is in men; and especially as it may be defined from the etymology of the Latin word for it "ira", as given by a learned grammarian[3], deriving it from "ire", "to go"; as if a man, when in anger, goes out of himself; and when he lays it down, returns to himself again; this cannot, in any sense, be ascribed to God: rather it may be, as if it was "ura", and so is "ab urendo", from burning; or rather from the Hebrew word hrx which signifies to burn; and the anger of God is compared to fire in Scripture, and is often said to be kindled; but then we are not to imagine, when God is said to be angry, that there is any commotion or perturbation in God's mind; that he is ruffled and discomposed, or that there is any pain or uneasiness in him, as in human minds; so it may be in finite created spirits, but not in an infinite and uncreated one, as God is: and much less is this to be considered as a criminal passion in him, as it too often is in men; for God is a pure and holy being; without iniquity: besides, there may be anger in men without sin; we are exhorted to be angry and sin not, (Eph. 4:26) and it is certain there was anger in the human nature of Christ, in whom there was no sin, nor was he conscious of any, (Mark 3:5) and so there may be in the divine mind, without an imputation of weakness or sin. Anger in God is no other than a disgust with sin, and with sinners, on account of it; it is often said in Scripture, that such and such a thing displeased him, or was evil, and not right in his sight (Num. 11:1; 2 Sam. 11:27; Ps. 60:1; Isa. 59:15). All sin is displeasing to God; he cannot take any pleasure in it, nor look upon it with delight; it is so contrary to his nature, and repugnant to his will, he cannot but have an aversion to it, and an abhorrence of it; and there are some sins more especially which provoke him to anger; as the sins against the first table of the law, particularly idolatry; which, of all sins, is the most provoking to him: since it strikes at his very being, and robs him of his glory; see (Deut. 32:16, 21; Judg. 2:12, 13; 1 King 16:33). Likewise distrust of the power and providence of God, murmuring at it, and complaining of it; which was often the case of the Israelites; and by which they provoked the Lord to anger; so perjury, false swearing, the taking of the name of God in vain, and blasphemy of it; profanation of the Lord's day, and neglect of his word, worship, and ordinances: and not these only, but sins against the second table of the law, are highly displeasing to God, and resented by him; as disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness, and every evil thing (see Isa. 5:24, 25).

Now "who knoweth the power of God's anger?" (Ps. 90:11) nothing can resist it, nor stand before it; not rocks and mountains, which are overturned and cast down by it; nor the mightiest monarchs, nor the proudest mortals, nor the stoutest and adamantine hearts; none can stand before God when once he is angry, (Job 9:5, 13; Ps. 76:7; Nah. 1:6).
1b. Secondly, The objects of the anger of God, or on whom it is exercised. "God is angry with the wicked every day", (Ps. 7:11) because they are daily sinning against him; their whole lives are one continued series and course of wickedness; all they do is sin; their very actions in civil life, the ploughing of the wicked, is sin; and all their religious services are but "splendida peccata", "shining sins", and so are displeasing to God, and resented by him; their sacrifices, brought with a wicked mind, without a right principle, and a right end, are an abomination to him, (Prov. 21:4, 27) being in the flesh, in an unregenerate state, they cannot please God, nor do the things which are pleasing in his sight; being destitute of the grace of God, and particularly of faith; "without which it is impossible to please him." These, though God is angry with them continually, yet they do not always appear under the visible and public tokens of his resentment; the "rod of God" is not on them; nor are they in trouble, as other men, and have more than heart can wish; oftentimes their families, flocks, and herds, increase; and they spend their days in health, wealth, and pleasure, (Job 21:7-13; Ps. 73:3-12) and seem as if they were the favourites of heaven, and think themselves to be such. But though God is slow to anger, as he is often described, moves slowly to express his anger; yet he will most certainly do it in the issue of things; and though men may promise themselves impunity in sin, and fancy they shall have peace when they walk after the imagination of their evil hearts, and add sin to sin; yet at length God will not spare them; but his anger and jealousy shall smoke against them, and all the curses written in the law shall come upon them, (Deut. 29:19, 20).

Moreover, God is angry with his own special people, holy and good men; we read of his anger being kindled against Aaron and Miriam, for speaking against Moses; and against Moses and Aaron, for not sanctifying him before the children of Israel; insomuch that neither of them were admitted to enter the land of Canaan; and against David, Solomon, and others, for sins committed by them. And this is not at all inconsistent with the love of God unto them: anger is not opposite to love; there may be anger in the nearest and dearest relatives; and where there is the most affectionate regard to each other: the anger of Jacob was kindled against his beloved Rachel; a father may be angry with his son, and chastise him for a fault, and yet dearly love him; and a son may be angry with a father, as Jonathan was with Saul, yet bear a true filial affection for him. God loves his people with an everlasting and unchangeable love, and never alters and varies in it; and yet may be angry, that is, displeased with them, and show his resentment at sin committed by them, by his chastisement of them, and still continue his love to them; for even that is done in love. Besides, the anger of God towards them, is often only in their sense and apprehension of it; when God goes forth towards them, in some dispensations of his, which are not agreeable to them, they conclude he is angry with them; and when these dispensations are varied, then they suppose his anger is turned away from them, (Isa. 12:1) so when he hides his face from them, and unbelief prevails, they interpret it, putting them away in anger, and shutting up his tender mercies in anger, (Ps. 27:9, 77:9) when he seems to turn a deaf ear to their prayers, and does not give an immediate answer to them; this they call being angry against the prayer of his people, (Ps. 80:4) and when he afflicts them, in one way or another, then they apprehend he comes forth in anger against them; and "they have no soundness in their flesh, because of his anger; nor rest in their bones, because of their sins", (Ps. 38:3) but when he takes off his afflicting hand, grants his gracious presence, and manifests his pardoning love and grace, then they conclude he has turned himself from the fierceness of his anger (Ps. 85:2, 3). Now this apparent anger, or appearance of anger, "endures but for a moment", (Ps. 30:5) a very short space of time indeed; though God hides his face from his people, and chides them for their sins: yet he does not keep anger for ever: this is the criterion by which he is distinguished from other gods, in that he retains not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy, (Ps. 103:9; Mic. 7:18) and in this the anger of God towards his people, differs from his anger to wicked men, since the one is but for a moment, and the other is continual.


2. The Wrath of God is the heat of his great anger, (Deut. 29:24) it is his anger not only kindled and incensed, but blown up into a flame; it is the "indignation" of his anger, the "fury" and "fierceness" of it, (Isa. 30:30, 42:25; Hosea 11:9) and it seems to be no other than his punitive justice, and includes his will to punish sinners according to the demerit of their sins in strict justice; his threatenings to do it, and the actual execution of it; which is the vengeance that belongs to him, and he will recompense; even his vindictive wrath, or vengeful judgment; "What if God willing to show his wrath", &c.? (Rom. 9:22). Now the wrath of God may be considered,
2a. As temporary, or what is executed in the present life; of which there have been many instances and examples, and there will be more; and a brief review of them will give a more enlarged idea of the wrath of God. Not to take notice of the apostate angels, whom God has cast down to hell; where, though they may not be in full torment, yet are dreadful instances of the wrath of God against sin; since not one of them have been spared, or have shared in pardoning grace and mercy. I shall only observe what examples of it have been, or will be, among men. The first instance of it is in the condemnation of Adam, and all his posterity, for the first sin, and for only one single sin of his. How great must that sin be! what sinfulness must there be in it! how greatly must the divine Being be incensed by it! in that, for it, he has caused death, that is, his wrath to pass in judgment on him, and all his offspring; so that, in consequence of it, all the children of Adam are the children of God's wrath. The next is the drowning of the old world, when full of violence and corruption; so that God repented he had made man in it, and it grieved him to the heart; and in his wrath he determined to destroy man and beast in it; and which he did, by bringing a flood on the world of the ungodly. Then follows another, though not so general; but limited and restrained to a part of the world; the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and others of the plain; whose inhabitants being notorious sinners, provoked the eyes of God's glory to such a degree, that he rained fire and brimstone from heaven upon them; and set them as an example and emblem of mens' suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. The plagues inflicted on the Egyptians, for not letting Israel go, when demanded of them, is another instance of the wrath of God; for by inflicting these on them, he not only made a way to his anger, to show it forth, as the Psalmist says; but, as he also observes, "he cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, indignation, and trouble", (Ps. 78:49, 50). The children of Israel themselves often provoked the Lord to wrath; and brought it down upon them, for their sins; as at Horeb, when they made the calf; at Taberah, Massah, and Kibrothhattaavah, where they murmured against the Lord, (Deut. 9:8, 19, 22) as they did likewise at the report of the spies, concerning the land of Canaan; when "God swore in his wrath, they should not enter into his rest." And again, upon the affair of Korah, and his accomplices, when wrath went forth from the Lord, and the plague began, (Num. 14:23, 16:46). Witness, also, each of their captivities; particularly their captivity in Babylon, through their mocking at, and misuse of the prophets of the Lord; so that wrath arose against them; and there was no remedy; and their last captivity, and destruction, by the Romans; when wrath came upon them to the uttermost; and under which wrath, and in which captivity they are to this day. Whenever the four sore judgments of God, the sword, famine, pestilence, and wild beasts, have been exercised in the world, as they often have been; they are always in wrath; and these with earthquakes, and such like uncommon events, are presignifications, and foretokens of greater wrath yet to come; and in a little while, the seven vials full of the wrath of God, will be poured forth on antichrist, and on the antichristian states; and the judgment of God will come on Babylon in one day. And when the end of all things is come, the earth, and all in it will be burnt with fire, and the heavens melt away with fervent heat; the day of the Lord will burn like an oven, and the wicked, like stubble, will be burnt up by it, and will have neither root nor branch left: all which will be expressive of the great wrath of God. But there is no greater instance of it, or what more fully demonstrates it, than what our Lord Jesus Christ suffered and endured as the Surety of his people, in their room and stead; when, their sins being imputed to him, were found on him, and he was stricken for them; the sword of justice was sheathed in him; the vindictive wrath of God was poured forth upon him, to the uttermost of the demerit of sin; God spared him not: how inconceivably great must his wrath be against sin, when God spared not in the least his own dearly beloved Son, but suffered him to be put to the most exquisite pain, both in body and soul, for the sins of his people!

2b. There is the wrath of God that is yet to come: the Scriptures speak of future wrath; wrath that will take place in the life which is to come; which in part, commences at the death of wicked men; and will be complete at their resurrection from the dead (Matthew 3:7; 1 Thess. 1:10). This is expressed by fire, than which nothing is more intolerable; even devouring fire and everlasting burnings, not to be endured; this is no other than the curse of the law that is broken; which not only reaches to this life, but to that which is to come; it is the same with the second death; which lies in a separation from God, and, in a sense of his hot displeasure; it is called hell and hell fire; the word for which, in the New Testament, is taken from Gehinnom, or the valley of Hinnom; where the Jews burnt their children in sacrifice to Molech; and which place, from the beating of drums in it, that the shrieks of the children might not be heard by their parents, was called Tophet; of which the prophet says, as an emblem of hell fire, or the fire of divine wrath; "Tophet is ordained of old--the pile thereof is fire, and much wood: the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it", (Isa. 30:33) which is an awful representation of the wrath of God. And by whatsoever term this state of wrath is expressed, it is always spoken of as what will continue for ever: it is called everlasting fire, everlasting punishment, everlasting destruction, "the smoke of torment, that ascends for ever and ever"; and for the commencement of which, in its full extent, there is a day fixed, called, "the day of wrath, and righteous judgment of God"; until which time God reserves wrath for his adversaries; it is laid up in store with him, among his treasures, and will be ever laying out, and pouring forth.

As to the objects of this wrath, seeing it is revealed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men; it lies against all that are unrighteous and ungodly; and as all have sinned, and are under sin, all are "children of wrath", (Eph. 2:3; Rom. 1:18, 3:9, 23) but there are some particularly described, on whom this wrath comes, and they are called "children of disobedience", (Eph. 5:5, 6; Col. 3:5, 6) such who are disobedient to the light of nature, rebel against it, and hold truth in unrighteousness, which that discovers; and so as they sin without law, they perish without law, (Rom. 1:18, 19, 21, 28, 2:12) and who also are disobedient to the law of God, break it, and are convicted by it, as transgressors, whom it pronounces guilty, and is the ministration of condemnation and death unto them; and who are disobedient to the gospel of Christ, obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, and are slaves to their sinful lusts and pleasures; on these come indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish; even on every soul of man that does evil, (2 Thess. 1:8; Rom. 2:8, 9) they are also represented as unbelievers: "He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him": he that does not believe that Christ is the Son of God, that he is the Messiah and Saviour of men, the sentence of wrath, which the law has passed on him, as a transgressor of that, remains; and since he denies divine revelation, rejects the gospel scheme, and disbelieves Christ as a Saviour, and salvation by him, there is no help for him; wrath is on him, and that without remedy, it must abide: now it is not any sort of unbelief for which this wrath is, and abides; not for that which is through the want of the means of faith, such as in heathens; for "how shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:14, 17) nor which is through the want of the special grace of faith, which is the gift of God, and peculiar to his elect, and which he only can give, and yet denies it; and which, without his grace vouchsafed, they can never have: but it is the disbelief of the report of the gospel, by such who have the opportunity of reading and hearing it, and yet either attend not to the evidence of it; or, notwithstanding that, reject it; they receive not the record God has given of his Son, and so make him a liar, than which nothing is more provoking to wrath (1 John 5:10). This was the case of the Jews of old, (John 3:19) and is of the deists of the present age. In short, the wrath of God comes upon men either for their sins against the light of nature, or against the law of God, or against the gospel of Christ.

There are some on whom no wrath comes here, nor hereafter; who are the vessels of mercy, afore prepared for glory: concerning whom Jehovah says, "fury is not in me"; and to whom he is all love, "love" itself, (Isa. 27:4; 1 John 4:16) being sinners indeed, and transgressors of the law of God, they are children of wrath as others, (Eph. 2:3) which phrase not only means that they are serving of wrath, but that, as they are sinners, they are found guilty of it; and not only found guilty, but are condemned unto it; they are really under the sentence of wrath, condemnation, and death; they are obnoxious to the curse of the law, which is no other than the wrath of God; they are liable to it, and in danger of it; and being so near it, how is it that they escape it, and are secured from it? They are secured from it by the decree of God, who has appointed them not to wrath, but to obtain salvation, (1 Thess. 5:9) which decree is unfrustrable by the oath of God, who has swore that he will not be wrath with them, (Isa. 54:9) which is immutable: by the suretyship engagements of Christ for them, to bear it in their room; and till that was done, God forbore to execute the sentence; called the forbearance of God, (Rom. 3:25) by Christ's actually bearing the chastisement of their peace; by being made a curse for them, and enduring the wrath of God in their room; whereby he delivered them from wrath to come, (Ps. 89:38; 1 Thess. 5:10) and by his righteousness imputed to them, through which, being justified, they are saved from wrath, (Rom. 5:9) though even these persons may have, at times, some apprehensions of the wrath of God; as, particularly, under first awakenings, and convictions of sin; when the law works a sense of wrath in them, and leaves in them a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation; when they flee to Christ, from wrath to come, and say, "Lord, save us, or we perish"; and afterwards, when under the hiding of God's face, or his afflicting hand is upon them, they imagine that the wrath of God lies hard upon them, and his fierce wrath goes over them, (Ps. 88:7, 16; Lam. 3:1) but in reality, there is no wrath comes upon them now; their afflictions and chastisements are all in love; and there will be no curse hereafter; but they shall always see the face of God, and be "in his presence, where are fulness of joy, and pleasures for evermore" (Rev. 3:19, 22:3, 4).


http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_1/book1_17.htm

 

[cygnusx1]

Please tell me you are joking. Please tell me that you are not trying to make the same misuse of Scripture
that Satan did.

Satan's misuse of that scripture was in order to tempt Christ to prove He was Sovereignly protected from all harm ..... which is no temptation if He wasn't!

please tell me you realise that Christ could never die unless He became sin!

Go and read how often the Jews picked up stones to stone Christ and He just walked through their midst unharmed ......... what or whom held these fanatical Jews back ?

 

[depthdeception]

No. It's inherent in the nature of God to be just, you said so yourself. So of course God will be just.

But your language still betrays the belief that "justice" is something external to God to which God's nature aligns itself.

No, they're not alone. Western concepts point to a formalization of the penalty. But many, many cultures penalize those who do wrong.

No doubt. However, just because someone penalizes another for doing something wrong does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that that culture/society is based upon a "penal" understanding of justice.

Broaden the view of a penalty to its actual definition, and I think you'll find that's not true.

Okay, what, exactly, is this "broadened" view of penalty?

To say your idea of penal substitution isn't adequate to say what atonement does, well, that's fine. I've also pointed out your view of penal substitution is already limited by some restraints being placed on the words in your view. But penal substitution clearly is not all that the Atonement accomplishes, even in PS theologies. That burns a straw man.

First of all, you have not pointed out any limitations of my view of PSA theory--in fact, I do not see that you directly or substantively answered any of the issues I raised. But more importantly, which PS may not be the entirety of what PSA advocates believe occurs in atonement, it is definitely the foundation upon which all other "consequences" of the atonement are based. Therefore, if one "burns" this strawman, one has burned the very foundation upon which the others are built.

The question is whether it is a valid representation of what happened, not whether it's all that happened.

I think it is.

But you have yet to show why this is so, or to even engage with what I have said directly.

 

[cygnusx1]

Christ died to overcome sin and death , to grant eternal life to all who believe on Him ........ all are agreed on that .

Why did God not defeat sin and death and forgive sinners without the need for Christ to die is where there is the difference .

The answer that the Evangelical Reformed Church's (I am not certain of the RCC view) give is Christ had to die to satisfy the just requirements of God's Law for sinners.

Those who deny this and insist that God could have forgiven sinners without the shedding of innocent blood have yet to answer why Christ needed to die ......... they will say to defeat sin and death but will not show why a sacrifice is necessary !

They must continue to speak of connections (incidentals ) and avoid the plain question!

 

[heymikey80]

But your language still betrays the belief that "justice" is something external to God to which God's nature aligns itself.

My language represents the two as separate concepts, because to humans they're separate concepts. I assume you have some point about betrayal.

I deny pointblank, however, that God's justice is correlated with God's enjoyment or pleasure, as humans think of pleasure. God doesn't do good things just for jollies.

No doubt. However, just because someone penalizes another for doing something wrong does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that that culture/society is based upon a "penal" understanding of justice.

If you noticed I pointed out existence of a penalty, not existence of a penal system. I believe that's all that's necessary to forward the argument. As you've accepted some form of penalty, the argument stands.

Okay, what, exactly, is this "broadened" view of penalty?

A view of a penalty outside such a penal system.

First of all, you have not pointed out any limitations of my view of PSA theory--in fact, I do not see that you directly or substantively answered any of the issues I raised.

I wasn't answering to your view at the time, just your specific questions to me.

But more importantly, which PS may not be the entirety of what PSA advocates believe occurs in atonement, it is definitely the foundation upon which all other "consequences" of the atonement are based. Therefore, if one "burns" this strawman, one has burned the very foundation upon which the others are built.

Sorry: not true.

A reconciled relationship results from peace with God, but it results in so much more than simply an, "I'm OK, you're OK, now go in peace" version of the Atonement.

Adoption results from the Atonement. There's nothing in the lawcourt metaphor that says the judge has to make every defendant his son.

Union with Christ results from the Atonement, and actually explicates penal substitution. Exactly how is union with Christ accomplished by penal substitution? It's "reckoned" to occur in order to make such a system of exchange possible.

Should I go on? Or should I point out that these concepts are flatly embraced by people who flatly embrace PSA? Check out John Murray's "Redemption Accomplished and Applied", I'm sure you'll find a kaliedescope of other results of the Atonement that don't fit the "penal substitution alone" version alleged here.

But you have yet to show why this is so, or to even engage with what I have said directly.

You're right. I wasn't answering you.

 

[heymikey80]

Once you have an Orthodox understanding of eternal torment, Jesus's use of the word 'judgement' has nothing to do with a penalty, judicial or otherwise.

The sacrifice of Jesus' sinless life, which He offered upon the cross, which was necessary to offer to God, and which He did that the divine Justice, which had been insulted by the disobedience of our First Parents, might be propitiated.
​

Fair enough?

 

[cygnusx1]

But who determines what is "right?" In your analogy, it is not the judge; rather, the judge is merely giving the judgment in an appeal to what is right. However, this analogy is meaningless when applied to God. After all, that which God does (regardless of what it might be) is right; therefore, there is no necessity for God acting one way or another, for God does not have to act in a certain way in order for justice to be done. Rather, that which God does (regardless of what it is) is just.

I think we have to distinguish between two different things here , ......Jehovas Holiness is not determined by His will , He IS HOLY , it is what God is , not what He chooses to be , therefore sin cannot go unpunished....... and God cannot sin!

Yet God's Law is willed , it is an objective standard that God has placed over SINNERS , that means He himself is not under it ....... for example He may tell you "Thou shalt not kill" (meaning murder of course) and if you do you will be subject to death ........ while at the same time from the ground of perfect Holiness God may kill millions in a world flood , or may even command the Israelites to go forth and slay nations!

Holiness is the basis for Law , the Law is an objective temporary rule , God's Holiness is inherent and is therefore Eternal.

Then God is bound to something (the pattern to which you suppose God's nature alligns itself) other than God. If this is true, then God is not God, but rather that to which God is bound is God, which is absurd.

God is not bound by anything ......... how can you be bound by a Law that is set down for sinners ?

Holiness is NOT some external force that makes God do anything , it is inherent.

Well, Western conceptions of justice and morality point to a penalty; however, there is nothing intrinsic to morality that demands such. Therefore, your entire point is moot, and is actually an uncritical acquiensence to the culturally determined conceptions of justice and morality that your particular paradigm proscribes.

Every conception of justice points to penalty ..... should someone slay your loved ones , you would not be indifferent , you would be looking for answers and some sought of harmony...... you would judge the crime as an "ill desert" and you would expect the sympathy of the governing bodies to capture and penalise this criminal/s.
I hope you are never put to the test.

Hardly. Not only is redemption without penalty possible, but it is precisely the nature of the redemption which God through Christ in the cross reveals to humanity.

"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgivenss of sin "......... could it be any plainer ?

You are missing the point! Salvation is not about being "absolved"--if it were, I would agree that redemption without punishment would be ridiculous. However, the problem of sinful humanity is not that it needs absolution from the "penalty" of sin.

Of course it does , you sin you feel guilt (I hope) and that guilt weighs heavily on you , you need absolving , you cannot make recompence yourself!

No, the problem is much more existential and ontological. By our sinfulness, we are separated from the life of God. No amount of "absolution" will remedy this problem. Rather, we need to be reconciled to God. This, then, is what Christ has come to do. If we merely needed absolution, God could have decreed this and it would have been so and just.

the difference between the animal sacrifices and Christ's is that the blood of innocent animals cannot cleanse us from sin , it does not deal with a polluted conscience ..... Christ's sacrifice is far more invigorating dealing exactly with the guilt and conscience of man .

This is a very narrow and limited view of what Christ came to do for humanity. Christ came to recreate humanity in the image of Christ, to reconcile us to God.

God could have done that by the same power that spoke creation into existence !

If we merely needed to be "declared righteous," God could have done this without the cross.

yes we need to be declared righteous , that is what Justication by faith is all about ..... you cannot stand before God in your own righteousness , you would not last!

Since this is true, for God to further require the death of God is a very sadistic picture of God.

Not at all , it is revealed as the height of Love ...... would that you could see it!

THerefore, the only conclusion is that a penal conception of humanity's problem of sinfulness is not adequate to describe that which atonement was meant to accomplish.

it is perfectly adequate , the inadequacy is in the none penal view , for God could have saved humanity without the cross according to the none penal view !

 

[holdon]

I think we have to distinguish between two different things here , ......Jehovas Holiness is not determined by His will , He IS HOLY , it is what God is , not what He chooses to be , therefore sin cannot go unpunished....... and God cannot sin!

And He cannot ordain sin either....

Yet God's Law is willed , it is an objective standard that God has placed over SINNERS , that means He himself is not under it ....... for example He may tell you "Thou shalt not kill" (meaning murder of course) and if you do you will be subject to death ........ while at the same time from the ground of perfect Holiness God may kill millions in a world flood , or may even command the Israelites to go forth and slay nations!

You seem to say that "God may commit immorality". He does not. Never. When He says to Israel: "slay this nation or that", it always means that God has His GOOD reasons for that: punishing of evil doers. Otherwise your theory undermines God's Justice.

 

[cygnusx1]

And He cannot ordain sin either....

Acts 4​

25who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, `Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things?26The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed' --27for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,28to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place.

You seem to say that "God may commit immorality". He does not. Never. When He says to Israel: "slay this nation or that", it always means that God has His GOOD reasons for that: punishing of evil doers. Otherwise your theory undermines God's Justice.

and just how is it possible for God to commit immorality ???

To sin first you have to be under law ....... God is free of all Law .

And when He says to Israel slay this nation or that nation , men women children and cattle .... whoever said God didn't have good reasons ........ certainly not me ????

I wonder where you got the idea from that God can sin ??? Certainly not from me!

Whatever God does is Holy because He is Holy .

 

[holdon]

Acts 4​

25who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, `Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things?26The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed' --27for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,28to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place.

This verse does not say that God made Pilate, Herod, the Gentiles and Israel do what they did. Otherwise they would have no guilt. But what they accomplished was in the prophecies of God.

and just how is it possible for God to commit immorality ???

Exactly! How? If you call murder immoral, and you say God commits murder, then you call God immoral. And that's what you said in your post #156.

To sin first you have to be under law ....... God is free of all Law .

Paul said: before there was law there was sin in this world. See Rom 5.

And when He says to Israel slay this nation or that nation , men women children and cattle .... whoever said God didn't have good reasons ........ certainly not me ????

I wonder where you got the idea from that God can sin ??? Certainly not from me!

Because you called God a murderer in post #156.

 

[depthdeception]

My language represents the two as separate concepts, because to humans they're separate concepts. I assume you have some point about betrayal.

You assume wrongly. I have no idea what you are getting at with the concept of betrayal, nor how you imagine that this is related to what I have been saying.

I deny pointblank, however, that God's justice is correlated with God's enjoyment or pleasure, as humans think of pleasure. God doesn't do good things just for jollies.

Okay, so what.

If you noticed I pointed out existence of a penalty, not existence of a penal system. I believe that's all that's necessary to forward the argument. As you've accepted some form of penalty, the argument stands.

But as I showed in the previous argument, it is not sufficient. For example, consider this true life scenario:

In Japan, a young is driving a cart recklessly, and accidentally runs over another man, killing him. At his trial, the young man is charged with homicide, but clearly represents that he is remorseful for what has happened. Seeing his repentance and remorse, the judge commutes the "penalty" of the crime (jailtime) and allows the young man to render service the dead man's family (almost in a penance-like manner), the point of the commuation being the restoration of the young man back into the community.

You see, there is still perhaps a penalty for the young man's action (he is still rendering service to the dead man's family). However, his "penalty" is "penal" in the sense that he has to be "punished" in some proportion to the crime he committed. In Western systems of "justice," justice is said to be blind and is supposed to render penalty for actions regardless of the circumstances, motivations, etc. However, in a non-penally oriented system of justice, these issues are taken into consideration and the telos of restoration and rehabilitation are always in the background of the dissemination of "penalty."

So, there is a profound difference in the contexts in which "penalty" is spoken of, and this reality must be always taken into consideration. Therefore, the mere presence of "penalty" does not forward or establish your argument by any stretch of the imagination.

A reconciled relationship results from peace with God, but it results in so much more than simply an, "I'm OK, you're OK, now go in peace" version of the Atonement.

No one has been advocating such a view of atonement, so you are now the one who is erecting strawmen.

Adoption results from the Atonement. There's nothing in the lawcourt metaphor that says the judge has to make every defendant his son.

I don't know of any system in which a judge makes anyone the judge's son...that is the purpose of a judge, to legally declare the adoption of son's by other men...

Union with Christ results from the Atonement, and actually explicates penal substitution. Exactly how is union with Christ accomplished by penal substitution? It's "reckoned" to occur in order to make such a system of exchange possible.

A change of status hardly explains how union occurs...