Just how does the wrath of god be appeased if no penal Substitution?

The great Mystery is that while upon the Cross, enduring the very judgement and wrath of god due towards sinners, Jesus Chrsit as that sin bearer really did deserve what he received from the father, for he took what was due to us!

 

Lets leave it that my view of what Christ accomplished on the cross, and what is accomplished when God transfers an individual into Christ differs significantly from the various possible meanings of the above.

 

And that the salvation process has Election and regeneration before faith in Christ!

 

Scripture please :)

Since we are chosen for salvation on the basis of God crediting our faith as righteousness, it is impossible to be saved before our faith has been credited as righteousness. Romans 4:4-5, Romans 4:23-24, Romans 5:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

 

So you are saying that all the theologians I have listed are wrong in saying that Jesus' death was unjust. As well as Peter in 1 Peter 2:19-25, in which he clearly says that Jesus' death was unjust, and it his unjust suffering that secures grace with God. Peter even uses the phrase sin bearer in the context of Jesus' unjust suffering. So no, the phrase "sin bearer" does nothing to show that Jesus' death was deserved, and it also does nothing to show substitution. Peter says that Jesus dies, not so that we wont have to, but so that we can die and rise in him. Here is the passage:

For this finds grace, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds grace with God.

21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

 

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread, which is the nature of the atonement?

 

Jesus pays our debt of obedience. Jesus does not pay our debt of punishment, because there is no such thing as a debt of punishment.

 

I don't find debate by quotation particularly helpful. It tends to be a case of "My Dad's bigger than your Dad!" But lest you think that I am without support, here's one from Aquinas:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom He inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; He was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he himself might suffer, God have him One who would satisfy for him.. Paul stresses this, saying, He has delivered Him for us all, and,God has established Him [Christ] as a propitiation by His blood through faith.'
[Summa Theologiae, vol. 54, 3a, quest. 47, art. 30. Emphases in original]

And one from Luther:

''Wherefore Christ was not only crucified and died, but sin also (through the love of the divine Majesty) was laid on Him. When sin was laid on Him, then cometh the law and saith, "Every sinner must die." Therefore, O Christ, if Thou will answer, become guilty, and suffer punishment for sinners, thou must also bear sin and malediction. Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged on a tree, therefore Christ was accursed of God.'
[Commentary on Galatians 3:13]

And here's one from John Stott which I quote from memory: 'We must never suppose that on the cross the Father inflicted upon the Son a penalty that He was unwilling to bear. Nor must we suppose that the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to bestow. At the cross, both Father and Son worked in perfect harmony for the salvation of Mankind.'

 

The backbone of 2 Cor 5 is not Isaiah 53, but Isaiah 49, which is what Paul quotes. It is about God's fulfillment of his covenant promises to bless all nations through Israel. Paul is saying that the church in Christ is the means by which God is fulfilling these promises hence why "we become the righteousness of God in the Messiah." The righteousness of God refers to his covenant faithfulness.

Regarding Isaiah 53, I have already pointed out on this thread that the logic of the text contradicts penal substitution. On penal substitution, it would read "by his wounding we avoid being wounded" but what the text actually says is "by his wounds we are healed." By his death the dead are brought back to life. And it is clear from the immediate context of Isaiah 53 and from the longest NT commentary on Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 2:19-25, that the suffering of the Servant is unjust.

And Galatians 3 I have also responded to on this thread already. Jesus suffers the curse along with Israel (not as Israel's substitute) and he suffers it unjustly, so that the curse would be reversed by his resurrection.

 

Yes, Thomas Aquinas and Luther definitely have inconsistencies in their views of the atonement. Back them into a corner, and they are saying that Jesus' death was both just and unjust at the same time, which is a contradiction. This is because Thomas really amped up the idea of a "debt of punishment" and composed a mechanism by which this needed to be satisfied, when Biblically a debt of punishment is not something that exists.

And John Stott has one of the most confused statements on this idea. On page 270 of The Cross of Christ he says that Jesus “paid sin’s wage” on our behalf. Anyone who has ever had a job knows this makes no sense. Wages are not something that we pay; wages are something we earn. Owing and earning are opposite sides of the economic metaphor. Thus, we do not owe death to God. We earn death for our sin. And we all justly receive the death we have earned when we suffer our sin’s consequences in this life and finally when we physically die. Our suffering and physical death is not a payment to God for our sin, and does not atone for our sin. Our atonement is in this: Jesus has voluntarily interceded to receive the wages of our sin along with us by suffering and dying on the cross. But he, being without sin and having paid our debt of obedience, has received these wages undeservedly and unjustly. Justice therefore demands that these wages be taken back, and that Jesus’ suffering and death be undone, reversed. Hence, Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus application of His death and resurrection to us through the Holy Spirit is our atonement.

 

Salvation is by faith in Christ, not by faith in the goodness of our own faith or in our faith as our righteousness. When we speak of being justified by faith what we are really talking about is being declared righteous by God on account of the righteousness of Christ through faith. Faith is the instrument by which we receive the benefits of Christ’s finished work on the cross for sinners. Both the substitutionary atonement and justification by the righteousness of Christ through faith are essential doctrines of the Christian faith. If we deny substitutionary atonement and yet maintain that we are saved by faith alone, then our faith cannot be in an object that leads to eternal life and the forgiveness of sins.

 

Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is simply a Trojan Horse for Calvinism's view of Limited Atonement.
Salvation occurs when an individual "receives" the reconciliation provided by Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross. An individual "receives" the reconciliation when God transfers the individual spiritually into Christ. Not in Christ, not saved, in Christ saved. The basis of God choosing an individual and transferring them into Christ is God crediting the individual's faith in Christ as righteousness.

I asked one poster what "atonement" means and got several paragraphs, but biblically the idea is reconciliation to God. Not reconciled, not in Christ. Reconciled in Christ. Reconciliation occurs when an individual is transferred into Christ where they are justified, forgiven, and saved from God's wrath. Christ is our propitiation, thus in Christ is to be inside the propitiatory shelter of Christ. Not in Christ, the wrath of God abides on the individual.

 

again, from the perspective of who Jesus was and is in himself, he was sinless and did not deserve death upon that Cross, BUT, he also took upon Himself the sins of the lost that he would redden, so at that moment in time became very sin, and so the Father would view and deal with him while upon the Cross as if was a lost sinner!

 

Romans 8, Ephesians 2:8-10, Ephesians 1:4, John 1:13

 

there is a sin debt of obligation owed to God for breaking his law!

 

All of them sound like that they would support Pst as Calvin saw it from the scriptures, as against the false views of those like NT Wright!

 

That last part of your post gets a big amen!

 

Pst actually is the vehicle by which God is able to both stay Holy, and extend grace towards lost sinners!

 

Thanks for citing more verses that support my view and preclude yours.