Featured JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement

The problem is constantly referring to "Pauline Justification" as it is different from the Justification of Christ.

Paul was not authoring a new theology but explaining what had been delivered.

There is an error of believing Paul's epistles are less than the rest of Scripture (we have seen this a few years ago on this board).

But there is also an error of viewing Paul's writings as greater than the rest of Scripture (this is where I believe you live).

 

My view has already been laid out. You actually repeated it (or extracts) when you quoted the ECF's.

Anyway, I believe Jesus had to physically assume human nature, unite it to his divine nature, overcome temptation throughout his life in reliance on the Holy Spirit, bearing our sins bodily on the cross suffer and die under the powers of the World (under the powers of Satan....i.e., the Serpent striking the heel), conquer the grave (victory over sin and death...crushing the Serpent's head), ascend to the Father as humanity’s representative and share the Spirit of new humanity with all who believe.

 

I have explained how all of this helps us. The problem is I have not articulated it well enough. That is why I'm reached out to use the words of other people.

Christ is, essentially, the "last Adam". Think of it this way - we were of the first Adam. What did this mean for us? It means death and bondage. Through faith we are now of the Last Adam. What does this mean? It means life.

I apologize that I cannot articulate this so as to explain better. To be fair, when I held to Penal Substitution I am not sure that I would understand as I would have a framework that only Penal Substitution could fill.

When I abandon Penal Substitution Theory it was not because I was persuaded by another view. I was convicted that I held a view that was not biblical. It was some time before I could read Scripture (like Christ died for our sins) without automatically reading into the text.

Working through Scripture I arrived at an understanding. Then I started studying to make sure I had not come up with a unique position (new for me is OK, new for Christianity is not). And I discovered the understanding at which I arrived was the "classic view" I had previously glossed over and dismissed as incomplete.

I say this to say that I wish I knew how to explain it to you so as the answer your questions. I am also being sincere. But I do not believe anything would have helped me to understand how the "classic view" is complete while I held to Penal Substitution. It does s a completely different framework (the "problem" of sin is different, the meaning of the Cross is different, what Christ achieved on our behalf is different).

 

That is my point. Why not just say "Justification"?

In the past I have quoted from the gospels and JesusFan responded that was not "Pauline Justification".

My point is there is one justification (Paul explained what was already given, his was not a different justification).

 

@Martin Marprelate

I will say I do appreciate your sincerity. Our responces have been colored by insincerity for far too long.

When I was convicted that Penal Substitution Theory was not supported by Scripture I brought that to this board. The reason was not to confront what I saw as error but to seek out the reasons for interpreting passages within a specific context.

I was more than willing to be shown the error was mine. I actually wanted that. So I asked questions.

Some would give me passages but we're unable to defend their interpretation (e.g., "God must punish sins to forgive sins, therefore Christ bearing our sins means Christ bearing our punishment"). But this ignored the basis of interpretation (and my questions...I know what Scripture means IF Penal Substitution Theory is right).

Others would say it is the only way the Cross makes sense (they should have added to them).

For the most part my questions were met with hostility. To my discredit I often responded in kind. I fear I have allowed that bleed over in our dialogue.

Anyway, every interaction I have had on this board, every instance where Penal Substitution Theory was "proven", has solidified my conclusion that it is wrong.

If divine justice (the supreme expression or form of justice...true righteousness) is that sins must be punished in order for sins to be forgiven then I grant that Penal Substitution Theory is absolutely correct. But if divine justice is something else, then Penal Substitution Theory is an error.

That is the reasoning behind my questions and persistence on this topic. For over a decade I have asked the same questions without receiving an adequate (for me) answer.

 

Christ could not have succeeded where Adam fails without suffering and dying under the powers of this World. As the ECF's pointed out, He had to take in all that it is to be human (including the curse).

It is not about defending doctrines. All a defence needs is a good argument. It is about testing doctrines against what is written in Scripture.

Simply put, the only place we find divine justice demanding sins be punished for them to be forgiven is in 16th century philosophy.

This should be evident to all, as I have been asking this board (including you) for passages stating that God must punish to forgive. For over a decade all that has been offered are passages interpreted using the assumption divine justice means punishing sins therefore God must punish either Christ (our sins in Him) or us. But the very foundation of Penal Substitution Theory is not in the Bible.

 

As far as I recall you have mostly ignored the question. But you have alluded to the affirmative (your comments that this is what it means for God to be just and the justifier of sinners).

Do you believe that God must punish our sins laid upon Christ in order to forgive us our sins?

If so, in what passage is that found? If not, why the Cross?

 

The Bible tells us in Genesis 3, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Acts exactly who is responsible for Christs death. The Bible tells us that it pleased God to crush Him, to put Him to grief, that this was God's will, His predetermined plan (Scripture interprets Scripture). But nowhere does it say that God caused His suffering (other than His obedience to the Father's will).

I agree that God does not acquit the guilty. This does not mean that God must punish sins for them to be forgiven. God makes the guilty innocent. He "washes" them, "sprinkles clean water on them", "recreates them".


Christ IS Mediator and Surety of the New Covenant. I do not understand where you think we differ here.

 

I know the passages you gave me. I agree with those passages. Our sins were laid upon Christ.

The problem is your interpretation of those passages depends on you believing that God must punish sins to forgive.

Why do you believe that justice (true justice) requires punishment of the crime in order to acquit the criminal.

I understood why John Calvin believed it (based on Calvin being a pupil of 16th century humanistic law...much of which has since been demonstrated as imperfect and problematic). But why do you believe it?

 

I absolutely agree that either being just and without mercy or mercy without justice is false.

I also agree that God will never punish the Righteous or acquit the guilty.

My argument is that God is just and the justifier of sinners, and that this is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.

The wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God. Period. No "if, ands, or buts".