Divine Justice

JonC said:

Jesus IS the propitiation. That is what I think you are missing. In Him we escape the wrath to come. "He Himself is the Propitiation". God set Him forth as a Propitiation.

Click to expand...

But him being the propitiation is because of his death and shedding of his blood for our sins. That is how he bore our sins in his body. Just his being himself, or being perfectly qualified doesn't work. That's what I was referring to earlier which you then mocked here with this reply:

JonC said:

I am not sure where you read that Jesus' life - the Incarnation without the crucifixion - was sufficient. Is that a form of Moral Influence? I do not hold that theory (Moral Influence or any theory that holds anything but the blood of Christ paid). I almost asked for the theory so I could be aware of it, but changed my mind. I do not want to know.

Click to expand...

You will never get it so you can continue with Martin.

JonC said:

No, God is not unjust. He did not cause Christ's "oppression", He dies not punish the Just, and He does not clear the guilty.

Click to expand...

God did cause Christ's oppression as I have shown very clearly. That He did not personally scourge Christ or hammer the nails in does not mean that He was entirely responsible for it.
But you are right that God is not unjust, that He does not punish the just and that He does not clear the guilty.
How that is done remains to be seen on this thread, although it is covered extensively in a variety of books and commentaries, and, of course, the Bible. I will deal with this as soon as I have time.

DaveXR650 said:

But him being the propitiation is because of his death and shedding of his blood for our sins. That is how he bore our sins in his body. Just his being himself, or being perfectly qualified doesn't work. That's what I was referring to earlier which you then mocked here with this reply:

You will never get it so you can continue with Martin.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. You forget that for most pf my life I held PSA as correct. But you are missing my point.

I agree that God setting Him forth as a propitiation is God sending His Son as an offering. I never said that Jesus is the Propitiation because He is righteous.

You are trying to create differences where differences do not exist. That is why I questioned where the idea that we were saved by Jesus being righteous rather than His sacrifice csme from. You introduced that idea into our conversationa few posts ago.

God setting forth Christ as a Propitiation is the crucifixion. It is His blood shed for us. But God setting forth His Son as a Propitiation is not God punishing Jesus.

Jesus bore our sins bodily, shared our humanity, was like one of us. He suffered death because of our sins, the death that sin produces as a wage. All flesh has been sold under sin.

I was not mocking you, BTW. I was curious as to where that theory came from (I was not saying you held that view yourself).

Martin Marprelate said:

God did cause Christ's oppression as I have shown very clearly.

Click to expand...

I know you have said that God caused Jesus' oppression. The problem is this by definition makes God unjust.

Oppression is (by definition) an unjust exercise of power. Hitler oppressed Jewish people. Punishing the innocent woukd be oppression (unjust) with the one doing the punishment an oppressor.

You define God as an Oppressor (one who uses power unjustly to crush or subdue).

This is not a character trait of God. So you have to defend exactly what made Him choose unrighteous.

Scripture offers a better explanation. It wss God's predetermined plan, His will, that Christ suffered injustice. But not God's actions (God is righteous and just).

@DaveXR650

Our disagreement is not over whether Christ is righteous. I think we both agree He is. Our disagreement is not over the idea that Christ’s righteousness alone was enough to save (without the Cross) as neither of us believe that. I am trying to keep from going on these tangents and keep focused on the Atonement and the differences between our views.

I believe that God laid our iniquity on Christ, it was His will to “crush” Him, that He bore our sins bodily, that He shared in our humanity, that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, was made sin for us, shared in our infirmity, was made like us in every way but did not sin.

God set Christ forth as a Propitiation in His blood to be received by faith. His blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. He died under the powers of evil, at the hands of wicked men, by unjust judgment (oppression), dying once for all that He would destroy the power of the one who holds the power of death (that is Satan), God raised Him from the dead, vindicated Him against the unjust punishment of the Cross, raised Him high and lifted up and greatly exalted.

The difference between our positions is not propitiation (we both believe that in Him we escape the wrath to come). The difference is not the necessity of the Cross. We both believe the Cross was necessary for our salvation.

When I say that justice is righteousness and point to Christ’s righteousness, I am not saying that Christ’s righteousness without Him taking on the flesh (the flesh is sold under bondage) and without the Cross saves us. But it does mean that Jesus is righteous. He is just. What we needed was not Jesus to be righteous but that we share in His righteousness. That is what saves us from wrath, for on the day of wrath we will be righteous, we will be conformed to His image, we will have been made new creations, we will be glorified in Him.

We needed a Righteous Savor to share in our human condition (to be made flesh, made sin, for us) so that being vindicated and becoming a life giving spirit we could share in His righteousness. Just as Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh we will be made in His likeness. That is salvation, not punishment satisfying justice.

We cannot approach the Atonement from the standpoint of the Father, viewing our salvation as the Father punishing sins to satisfy His wrath. We have to approach the Atonement from the standpoint of Jesus Christ, viewing our salvation as His work as we die to sin, die to the flesh, die with Christ so that we may be made alive in Him.

Martin Marprelate said:

God did cause Christ's oppression as I have shown very clearly. That He did not personally scourge Christ or hammer the nails in does not mean that He was entirely responsible for it.
But you are right that God is not unjust, that He does not punish the just and that He does not clear the guilty.
How that is done remains to be seen on this thread, although it is covered extensively in a variety of books and commentaries, and, of course, the Bible. I will deal with this as soon as I have time.

Click to expand...

What you (and @SovereignGrace abd @David Lamb ) are missing is what the Bible states. I can find any commentary or books to declare just about any idea. We have to allow Scriptire to interpret Scripture.

You say that God oppressed Jesus. Oppression is unjust judgment. The oppressor is unjust by definition.

We do not have to stick to Isaiah 53 to know Christ's death was not satisfying justice but injustice (although Isaiah 53 states this several times). Isaiah 53:8 is quoted in the New Testament which directly interprets "oppression" as unjust judgment.

We have to stick with the Biblical text. God is not unjust. Period.

JonC said:

The Bible refers to Christ's death as unjust, as oppression, as a judgment (qualified as erroneous in the verses before), as evil, as occurring by powers of evil, as the power of the devil. But never as just. Never as an act of God.

Click to expand...

JonC said:

You say that God oppressed Jesus. Oppression is unjust judgment. The oppressor is unjust by definition.

Click to expand...

I think it becomes obvious here that your repeated objections as above make it impossible for any of the clear Biblical writings that involve Jesus bearing our sins or becoming sin for us. No matter how you try to twist that you cannot get away from Jesus, who of course was completely innocent, suffering for us. And, from the standpoint of looking at it directly, it was indeed unjust. Scripture considers it "the just for the unjust" and without that happening you have no possibility of redemption, whether you approve of it or not. You say it is wrong for the just to die for the unjust yet that is what happened.

At the same time, this appears from scripture alone to be planned from before human history began. Your view demands that this be a horrible unjust, illegal thing that happened, an abomination beyond any men collectively have ever done. And you know what? It was. Wait though, if it was planned, and planned by God - the problem you have is that merely to occur, and occur with God's permission, much less his divine plan - demands that God be unjust, according to the way you are defining justice. You keep repeating a principle, that God doesn't punish the innocent for the guilty as your best argument against PSA, when all the while, that is the whole point. And to refuse that is to refuse the redemption offered to you.

DaveXR650 said:

I think it becomes obvious here that your repeated objections as above make it impossible for any of the clear Biblical writings that involve Jesus bearing our sins or becoming sin for us.

Click to expand...

No, this is a false statement. We both have the same biblical text. What I am saying is that I believe God's words are exactly what the biblical text teaches.

My position insists that God's justice as God jas described in Scripture will be accomplished. God will NEVER punish the Innocent. God will NEVER clear the guilty. The wicked WILL be cast into the outter darkness. The innocent alone will live. Period. No exceptions because that is what God said.

I do reject the understanding you say the Bible "clearly" teaches because I see no need to depart from "the faith once delivered" (the biblical text). I do reject your secular philosophy of justice. I believe justice is what God has revealed in Scripture rather than your humanistic philosophy.


Whe the bible states that Jesus bore our sins bodily I believe it means that Jesus bore our sins bodily (in the flesh) on the cross. I do not feel a need to add to the verse theories about what this teaches in regard to the sins of people.

When the Bible states that punishing the just is an abomination to God I believe this means that punishing the just is an abomination to God. I do not need to explain that away to make my theory work.

When the Bible states that clearing the guilty the is an abomination to God I believe this means that clearing the guilty is an abomination to God. I do not need to explain that away to make my understanding work.


When the Bible states that punishing the innocent is unjust I believe this means that punishing the innocent is unjust. I do not need to explain that away to make my position work.

When the Bible states that God will never hide His face from the Righteous I believe this means God will never hide His face from the Righteous. I do not need to make exceptions to support my understanding.

When the Bible foreshadowed Christ's death as being unjust (as oppression) I do not need to change the passages to make them work for me.

When the Bible in Acts quotes Isaiah stating that Jesus' death was unjust judgment I do not attribute this unjust punishment to an act of God.

When the Bible states that it was God's will t0 crush Jesus I do not have to narrow the meaning to mean it was God's will that He crush Him because I do not hold a theory that necessitates such a corruption.



What is telling is ypu cannot provide even one place where I depart from the biblical text itself, yet there are numerous instances where your theory stands against the biblical text (I have mentioned 6 in this post alone).

Rather than trusting in what one sect of men have told you the Bible clearly teaches when properly understood you would do better to simply believe the biblical text as teaching God's words recorded therein.

Our disagreement is not about translation. It is about your insistence that the Bible teaches something contrary to and other than the actual biblical text.


We are under an obligation to believe God's words. We are under no obligation to believe the understanding of a sect that "tickles your ears".


In the end your philosophy has a form of godliness but denies the power of the gospel itself by viewing mere punishment as satisfying divine justice and saving us from the wrath to come. It is a cheap gospel that if held alone will not save a soul. What saves PSA theorists, Catholics, etc is Christ through the true gospel despite their humanistic philosophy.


AND this is easily proven. You canmot provide even one verse stating the unique elements of your theory without having to "explain" what they "really" mean.


Let me ask you - if God's words alone make sence... if "He bore our sins; share our humanity; shared our infirmity" makes since without adding penal substitution to it -EVEN if it would not satisfy a 16th century humanistic movement - why not believe it?

Martin Marprelate said:

God did cause Christ's oppression as I have shown very clearly.

Click to expand...

I know that is what you believe - the cause of Christ's "unjust punishment" is God. I have heard this argument before. A child is murdered. God caused it. A little girl is rapped. God caused it. A Christian is persecuted. God caused it. Why? Because He is sovereign, so it must be within His plan, therefore He is the cause of all evil.

Logically I get your reasoning. But biblically it is heresy to say God oppressed Jesus as the Oppressor (the one doing the oppression) is by definition unjust.

God does not commit sin in order that good come from it. But often the sin is a part of God's predetermined plan.

You and @David Lamb are wrong on this. God punishes. God forgives. God does not oppress. Why? Because God is holy, He is righteous, He is just.

You have twisted Scripture which describes Christ dying, experiencing the death sin produces as a wage and a power of Satan by describing God as Satan (unjust, unrighteous, punishing the innocent, clearing the guilty, etc.). I am pretty sure calling God unjust (saying He oppressed the Just) is blasphemy.

JonC said:

What you (and @SovereignGrace abd @David Lamb ) are missing is what the Bible states. I can find any commentary or books to declare just about any idea.

Click to expand...

The sad fact is that your posts resemble the writings of people like Steve Chalke and Eleonore Stump. Whether this is because you read and approve their books or because you just naturally agree with them, you know better than I.

JonC said:

We have to allow Scriptire to interpret Scripture.

Click to expand...

I think it would be good if you did that.

JonC said:

You say that God oppressed Jesus. Oppression is unjust judgment. The oppressor is unjust by definition.

Click to expand...

Yet, as I have posted time and time again, 'The LORD (not Satan, not Pilate, not the chief priests) has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' And as a direct result of our sins being laid on Him, 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body (not just taking them for a walk and then giving them back to us, but) on the tree.' And 'tree' here is not just an alternative word for cross. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.' He bore our curse, the curse of Deut. 21:23 as well as 27:26. What was the result of that? 'He redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.' We shall not suffer that curse because He has borne it for us. Penal Substitution!

JonC said:

We do not have to stick to Isaiah 53 to know Christ's death was not satisfying justice but injustice (although Isaiah 53 states this several times). Isaiah 53:8 is quoted in the New Testament which directly interprets "oppression" as unjust judgment.

We have to stick with the Biblical text. God is not unjust. Period.

Click to expand...

You continually throw out 'Biblical text' without ever quoting it. What texts exactly are you thinking of? I'm not ashamed of quoting the word of God; why are you? But whether you like it or not, Isaiah 53:8 is followed by Isaiah 53:10. All that went on was according to the LORD's good pleasure, 'But God meant it for good, to bring it about as it is this day, save save many people alive' (Gen. 50:20).

Martin Marprelate said:

The sad fact is that your posts resemble the writings of people like Steve Chalke and Eleonore Stump. Whether this is because you read and approve their books or because you just naturally agree with them, you know better than I.

I think it would be good if you did that.

Yet, as I have posted time and time again, 'The LORD (not Satan, not Pilate, not the chief priests) has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' And as a direct result of our sins being laid on Him, 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body (not just taking them for a walk and then giving them back to us, but) on the tree.' And 'tree' here is not just an alternative word for cross. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.' He bore our curse, the curse of Deut. 21:23 as well as 27:26. What was the result of that? 'He redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.' We shall not suffer that curse because He has borne it for us. Penal Substitution!

You continually throw out 'Biblical text' without ever quoting it. What texts exactly are you thinking of? I'm not ashamed of quoting the word of God; why are you? But whether you like it or not, Isaiah 53:8 is followed by Isaiah 53:10. All that went on was according to the LORD's good pleasure, 'But God meant it for good, to bring it about as it is this day, save save many people alive' (Gen. 50:20).

Click to expand...

I do not care who's writings my writings resemble (and I do not know of Chalke or Stump, but if they were also identifying the heresy in calling the Father unjust then they were right. I assume they hold some fringe doctrine, but even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut....they have nothing to do with me).

YOU stated that God oppressed Jesus. You are claiming that God is wicked, unjust.


But nice try in trying to walk it back.

I already said that Isaiah 53:10 is stating that "crushing" Christ was God's will - His predetermined plan. I even offered other oassages stating the same thing (Scripture interprets Scripture).

YOU rejected it just a few posts ago. But I am glad you reversed your course (at least, publically).

JonC said:

Whe the bible states that Jesus bore our sins bodily I believe it means that Jesus bore our sins bodily (in the flesh) on the cross. I do not feel a need to add to the verse theories about what this teaches in regard to the sins of people.

Click to expand...

When I see that Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the cross the only assumption I make is that the verse is no joke. It must have been necessary in God's eyes for this to happen for purposes of our redemption. If that is the case then innocent Jesus bearing our sins means something. At the absolute minimum it meant what we see recorded - that Jesus suffered a horrible criminal's death in the act of bearing our sins. That in the public rendering of it everyone knows it was a criminals death we know it was punitive and it was completely unjust and Jesus was actually innocent. We already have established that it must have been necessary that this happen for our redemption. We know what it was that apparently was necessary - that Jesus suffer a horrible criminal's death. Was he personally guilty? No, he even technically won his case. Pilot thought he was not worthy of death. But he took on our guilt. That is what it means that he "bore" our sins. That can be thought of as "punishment" though unjust in the sense of Jesus personally - but also as a satisfaction of justice in that it was exactly what God determined would be sufficient for our redemption.

The only way to get around this is to claim that this shouldn't have happened and thus was not essential that it did happen. There is a sense in which it shouldn't have happened in that Jesus would have had every right to refuse to do this or pull out at any time. He said so. But he didn't because this was not only a man made lynching - God was using this to redeem his people. If the Godhead actually planned this then the words like it appeased God's wrath on sinners, it was a penal, and it was substitution and it provided satisfaction to God's justice and holiness are all perfectly natural and even inevitable conclusions as to fully explaining what happened that day.

DaveXR650 said:

When I see that Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the cross the only assumption I make is that the verse is no joke. It must have been necessary in God's eyes for this to happen for purposes of our redemption. If that is the case then innocent Jesus bearing our sins means something. At the absolute minimum it meant what we see recorded - that Jesus suffered a horrible criminal's death in the act of bearing our sins. That in the public rendering of it everyone knows it was a criminals death we know it was punitive and it was completely unjust and Jesus was actually innocent. We already have established that it must have been necessary that this happen for our redemption. We know what it was that apparently was necessary - that Jesus suffer a horrible criminal's death. Was he personally guilty? No, he even technically won his case. Pilot thought he was not worthy of death. But he took on our guilt.

Click to expand...

I agree with the above.

DaveXR650 said:

That is what it means that he "bore" our sins. He took our guilt.

Click to expand...

I disagree here. I believe thar Jesus bearing our sins is more than merely being punished by the Roman authorities.

We have too many passages that could be used to offer a definition other than "He took our guilt". In fact, "He took our guilt" is not biblical.

Instead He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

DaveXR650 said:

The only way to get around this is to claim that this shouldn't have happened and thus was not essential that it did happen. There is a sense in which it shouldn't have happened in that Jesus would have had every right to refuse to do this or pull out at any time. He said so. But he didn't because this was not only a man made lynching - God was using this to redeem his people. If the Godhead actually planned this then the words like it appeased God's wrath on sinners, it was a penal, and it was substitution and it provided satisfaction to God's justice and holiness are all perfectly natural and even inevitable conclusions as to fully explaining what happened that day.

Click to expand...

I do not understand your logic here. By your reasoning Joseph's brothers should have sinned because this was God's predetermined plan. Judas should have betrayed Jesus because this was essential to fulfill prophecy and towards the crucifixion. Adam should have sinned because this was essential in Christ being the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

I do not believe this type of logic is biblical. I kinda get it (some Calvinists have declared that God is the author of evil).


We have to use God as our Standard when it comes to "should".

Unjust punishment should never occur because it is evil (it is unrighteous, against God's nature). But in occurring this may be according to God's predetermined plan. It is still not "of God".

We see God's plan in Judas betraying Christ. But Scripture says it was Satan, not God, who entered Judas. This was in accordance with God's plan, His will. But we cannot deny it was by the influence of Satan because the Bible says it was.

This just shows how almighty God's sovereignty really is, and how far above man's mind.


1. We can agree with Scripture that Christ's death was "oppression" and "unjust judgment" by the powers of evil, by "the devil", by "the wicked".

2. We can agree with Scripture that this was God's predetermined plan to accomplish our redemption

3. We cannot go against Scripture and attribute this "oppression", "unjust punishment", this "evil" as being God's justice. We know God's justice. He called Jesus' death "unjust".


So yea.... the murder of Jesus shouldn't have happened. But it did happen in accordance with God's plan to being about our justice (our righteousness). Punishment never satisfies divine justice. Even just punishment is not what satisfies justice (it brings it about).

So certainly unjust punishment (oppression) can not satisfy divine justice. But divine judgment was exercised (the vindication, Christ given a name above every names, glorified, seated at God's right hand).

On the cross God was reconciling the world to Himself IN CHRIST, not counting man's sin against them. This does not mean God was counting man's sins against Christ. Given the passages we have mentioned this would be an erroneous addition to the verse. Christ Himself IS the Propitiation, the reconciliation, the Way, the Life. We recieve this by faith.

My argument is that Christ actually accomplishes our redemption (rather than it just being the work of the Father punishing the Son in our place).

Now the question that has to be answered is

JonC said:

YOU stated that God oppressed Jesus. You are claiming that God is wicked, unjust.


But nice try in trying to walk it back.

I already said that Isaiah 53:10 is stating that "crushing" Christ was God's will - His predetermined plan. I even offered other oassages stating the same thing (Scripture interprets Scripture).

YOU rejected it just a few posts ago. But I am glad you reversed your course (at least, publically).

Click to expand...

On the contrary, we agree that 'crushing' Christ was God's will. What you will not accept is that God was responsible for 'crushing' Christ. And that is simply untenable. 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'
So why is the 'crushing' of Christ not the 'punishing of the innocent'? There are several reasons.

First of all, Christ is God. If God had taken some random bloke and laid all the sins of God's people upon him, then leaving aside the fact that such a person would be a sinner and therefore disqualified as a saviour, it might be felt that it was unfair. But it is God Himself who has paid the penalty for our sins and redeemed His people (Acts 20:28).

Secondly, the believer is not separate from Christ, an unrelated third party. We need to understand the doctrine of the believer's union with Christ. Over and over again in the N.T., we see the words 'in Him.' He is in us and we are In Him, indwelt by His Holy Spirit. Every Christian has been united with Christ (Rom. 6:5), indwelt by Christ (Col. 1:27) and is in Him (e.g. John 14:23; 17:23; Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:17; Phil. 1:1). Our Justification. our adoption as God's children and our present reigning with CHrist in the heavenly places (Rom. 3:26-28; Eph. 1:3-5; 2:6) are all rsults of our union with Christ.
So the Doctrine of Penal Substitution does not propose a transfer of guilt between unrelated persons. It asserts that guilt is imputed to Christ from those who are 'in HIm' (2 Cor. 5:19, 21), while His righteousness in imputed to us. Luther used the analogy of a marriage of a rich man and a bride who was a debtor. The rich man knows that the marriage will bring debt upon him, but freely enters into the marriage knowing that he will pay off his bride's debt (c.f. Eph. 5:21).

Thirdly, Christ is not counted as innocent. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' We must understand that these things were not done to Christ against His will (c.f. Psalm 40:6-8; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 12:2), but the fact is that Christ had all our sins laid upon Him, and He was made the epitome of sin, for the express purpose that we become the righteousness of God in Him. This can only have been done by imputation; our sins were imputed to Him, so that while He was personally sinless, He was legally guilty. Lest we should think that this is unfair, it should be noted that the apostle Peter declares in 1 Peter 2:23 that God 'judges justly' and in the very next verse observes that Christ 'bore our sins.' Moreover, Paul declares that setting Christ forth as a propitiation for sins is a demonstration of God's justice, not a violation of it

God is the righteous Judge. He will not simply forgive sin. Occasionally in Britain, one used to hear of a man who had run over and killed a child whilst under the influence of drink. And on a few occasions, the driver would get away with a fine and a driving ban. And newspapers would go crazy: 'Who does this judge think he is?' How dare a judge let someone like that off without a jail sentence? And in recent years the law has been tightened up so that drunk drivers who kill someone always get a jail sentence, and rightly so. But the point is, 'Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?' Of course He will! He cannot simply forgive sins and remain just. That is why He set Christ forth as a propitiation: 'That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Rom. 3:26). That is why John tells us that, 'He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness' (1 John 1:9). That He is 'faithful' to do so means that He can be relied on; that He is 'just' to do so means that He is righteous when He forgives the sins of His people because Christ has paid in full the penalty for their sins.

Martin Marprelate said:

Now the question that has to be answered is

On the contrary, we agree that 'crushing' Christ was God's will. What you will not accept is that God was responsible for 'crushing' Christ. And that is simply untenable. 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'

Click to expand...

True. While I absolutely agree with Isaiah 53:10 "But the Lord desired
To crush Him, causing Him grief" I do reject that God Himself was the Oppressor. That was my point when you claimed that "God oppressed Jesus".

There are several reasons that I reject your interpretation of that verse.

1. The verse is not specific in that it does not state who is "crushing" Jesus, or the "crushing" itself (unjust punishment or sending Him to be an offering).

So we have to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Here you have no ground upon which to stand.

2. The Bible never refers to Jesus' death as just punishment against our sins. Instead the Bible calls this punishment "unjust judgment" (Acts, quoting Isaiah) and "oppression" (Isaiah).

3. The Bible also provides verses that explain this "crushing" as wrought by the power of evil, by Satan, and wickedness.

4. The Bible provides many passages restating Isaiah 53:10. Jesus died by the wicked but by the predetermined plan of God.

5. Nowhere in the Bible is God said to have "crushed" Jesus. You interpret it that way based solely on your philosophy (your understanding of justice.

6. Scripture repeatedly states it is unjust to punish the Innoccent and unjust to clear the wicked. For God to do either would make God into Satan.

7. Your theory focuses on punishment satisfying the Father. It does not view the Cross as a work of Christ except that Jesus allowed the Father to punish Him. The theory is an abomination (per Scripture, ironically).

It is impossible for any PSA theorist to be a Christian if PSA is the gospel to them. If it is, they are lost and in need of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thankfully most PSA theorists hold the theory lightly. They have not been carried away from the faith once delivered. The danger is they could be. But they hold PSA alongside the gospel of Jesus Christ, as a part of their own understanding (something a believer does not lean on).

Unfortunately the danger of being carried away by the philosophy is real. I praise God He drew me back into His Word as I was on that track.

@Martin Marprelate

What you are missing is the "just" part of God's being. God does forgive sins (literally, without redefining "forgive" to mean "punish somebody else").

BUT God does not forgive in a way that is unjust. He simply does not become unrighteous.

You said that "God oppressed Jesus". That, by definition, makes God rather than Satan Jesus' Oppressor. Which by definition makes God unjust (Isaiah uses "oppression", which means "the unjust exercise of power or authority to harm", more than once. But Luke quoted Isaiah as well, rather than "oppression" he used "unjust judgment".


I agree with you that if Jesus experienced God's punishment then God would be oppressing Jesus as it would be unjust.

The problem is you make God out to be Satan. You truly believe that God violated His own standard of justice in order to avoid punishing you.


The irony is that you allowed a failed philosophy to to carry you to the point you publically state that "God oppressed Jesus".

Punishing a crime is not justice itself. Of Jesus suffered your punishment instead of you that would profit you nothing. You would still be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Punishment has a purpose thst is not served simply by the act of punishing. This is why God said it is evil to punish the innocent and to clear the guilty. It accomplishes nothing except to condemn the one doing the punishing.


Many PSA theorists like the theory because it is an "easy believism" that makes no demand on them. They merely want to escape the wrath to come and it gives thdm comfort in this life believing they have. Yet, they will one day hear "I never knew you" because they have exchanged the gospel for what men have told them it really teaches. They have been carried away by their philosophy because they have chosen to lean on their own understanding. Professing to be wise they have become fools.


Sad thing is, if one does ignore all of the passages describing God's justice, if one ignores the Levitical system as foreshadowing the Cross, if one ignores the fact that no passage states the ideas unique to Penal Substitution Theory... you still have a failed philosophy.

We all know if an innocent man is executed that does not satisfy justice, when the guilty man is caught he will face punishment. We all know that punishment itself does not satisfy justice. Your philosophy only existed for less than a century, except in PSA, because it was unjust.


The reason the 16th century movement that developed your philosophy was not long lived is it did not take long before people realized punishment did not satisfy justice. Justice was a much greater concept.

You are wrong to build your faith upon that philosophy. It is sand.

@Martin Marprelate

Any time Christians discuss their differing views it is important to first explore and explain presuppositions and definitions. If this step is skipped all we get is two people talking past one another. This was what I tried to tell @DaveXR650 .

It does not matter if you believe verses stating that God is just but fail to define divine justice because we both believe that God is just but may define justice differently.

I define justice as God's righteousness. So I view all unrighteous as not compatible with justice.

So obviously I do not view the Law as justice itself. I do believe that the Law is just, but it is a manifestation of of God's righteousness. Justice, however, goes beyond the Law.

I believe justice never incorporates unrighteousness. Punishing the just is unrighteous. Clearing the guilty is unrighteous. Yet forgiving sins (actually forgiving sins, not finding a way to clear the guilty) is just as long as it does not violate justice.

Punishment, then, never satisfies justice. The soul that sons must die. The wicked must perish. The guilty can never be cleared. The righteous can never be justly punished. God passed over the sins committed under the law so that in the present time He would be just and the justifier of the one who believes. This is not a way to clear the guilty. It is a way of completely destroying the guilty.

I view God as satisfying the demands of justice in a way that satisfies the requirements of the law yet is apart from the law. But justice itself is more than the law (it includes moral justice, but is not simply moral justice). We know this from Scripture (both the OT and the NT). Justice is righteousness, it is God's kingdom.

JonC said:

Yet forgiving sins (actually forgiving sins, not finding a way to clear the guilty) is just as long as it does not violate justice.

Click to expand...

Yes but that seems to be the problem doesn't it. In Romans 3:26 and thereabouts you have this explained as a problem. God overlooking sin of past humans and our situation now is a "justice" problem, even for the repentant. This is always the root problem.

If you have Christ coming and living the same life we did, yet sinlessly - and we can by being in him, be made new and avoid judgement you would be right - except it is part of this that Christ had to die this criminal's death.

If you have Christ "taking the strong man captive and spoiling his goods", overcoming the powers of darkness and binding Satan, or buying us with a ransom - you still have as the core of the plan that Christ had to die this criminal's death.

If you have Christ as a supreme example of going all the way in obedience and showing love that still means he had to actually die that death.

And we know that, unjust as the trial was and the sentence, from the point of view of legal justice, it was still planned and it was God's active will for our sakes, that this happen. We have Jesus in scripture making sure to be where this needed to happen and are told he was directly able to stop this injustice at any time.

From many verses, not just Romans 3:26 we know that this was to be so that God would be just and the justifier that he wants to be and thus stay true to his nature. It did provide some kind of satisfaction. It involved somehow the fact that we can accumulate "guilt" and cause "wrath" in God and that must be satisfied.

Your explanation, that an innocent one could not be punished at the hand of God demands that the cross of Christ be stripped of all the Godhead's active involvement - and in reality you are destroying the gospel which no matter how incomplete our understanding, must have the Father and the Son actively planning and doing this, each part at the appropriate time.

DaveXR650 said:

Yes but that seems to be the problem doesn't it. In Romans 3:26 and thereabouts you have this explained as a problem. God overlooking sin of past humans and our situation now is a "justice" problem, even for the repentant. This is always the root problem.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Paul was not describing a problem (how God saved us) in Romans 3:26 but why God forgave sins in the Old Testament. It was not awaiting a punishment to be inflicted on the Righteous but awaiting for the Promise, the righteousness of God manifested apart from the Law.

Justice was never the root problem. In fact, there never was a problem to be solved. Justice is the same, it is the righteousness of God. Rather than it being a problem it was a matter of timing (waiting for the Promise, the time when God would redeem man).

It was not my explanation that it is unrighteous to punish the just and it is unrighteous to clear the guilty. That is God's explanation of how Justice looks.

In your theory it is a problem because you view the innocent as being punished to clear the guiltu. But that is only a problem that ecists in your theory.

God bring just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ is not describing a problem but why God passed over sins prior to Christ reconcling mankind to God.


If God violates His own Justice (clearing the guiilty or punishing the innocent) then God is not just.

But if God destroys the guilty and clears only those made righteous in Christ then God is just and justifies those who believe.

Christ actually accomplished our salvation (without the Father becoming unrighteous. Neither the Father or the Son violated the law).

JonC said:

@Martin Marprelate

Any time Christians discuss their differing views it is important to first explore and explain presuppositions and definitions. If this step is skipped all we get is two people talking past one another. This was what I tried to tell @DaveXR650 .

It does not matter if you believe verses stating that God is just but fail to define divine justice because we both believe that God is just but may define justice differently.

I define justice as God's righteousness. So I view all unrighteous as not compatible with justice.

So obviously I do not view the Law as justice itself. I do believe that the Law is just, but it is a manifestation of of God's righteousness. Justice, however, goes beyond the Law.

I believe justice never incorporates unrighteousness. Punishing the just is unrighteous. Clearing the guilty is unrighteous. Yet forgiving sins (actually forgiving sins, not finding a way to clear the guilty) is just as long as it does not violate justice.

Punishment, then, never satisfies justice. The soul that sons must die. The wicked must perish. The guilty can never be cleared. The righteous can never be justly punished. God passed over the sins committed under the law so that in the present time He would be just and the justifier of the one who believes. This is not a way to clear the guilty. It is a way of completely destroying the guilty.

I view God as satisfying the demands of justice in a way that satisfies the requirements of the law yet is apart from the law. But justice itself is more than the law (it includes moral justice, but is not simply moral justice). We know this from Scripture (both the OT and the NT). Justice is righteousness, it is God's kingdom.

Click to expand...

These are, as you say, your presuppositions. You should look at the texts that I am constantly bringing forward and you will see that you are applying your presuppositions in an unbiblical way.

Your presuppositions are your problem. You are constantly saying that you 'just follow the Bible,' which we all knew you didn't, but now you have finally admitted it. You are holding God to your flawed human understanding of righteousness.

You are stuck on Isaiah 53:10 because you cannot accept what it says so clearly. If you will just accept what the text says, you will find that God is perfectly righteous, but in His way, not necessarily yours.

I advise you to meditate on two texts of Scripture: Isaiah 55:8-9 and Romans 11:33-36. Another text which will help you is Genesis 50:20, which I gave you in an earlier post: "But as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it fot good, in order to save many people alive as it is this day." God actively brought evil into Jospeph's life (Gen. 45:4-5) but for a good purpose, as Joseph came to realise. God is not bound to your fallen definitions of how He should act. You are bound to His righteous demands as to how you should act.