1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Penal Substitution

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Martin Marprelate, Oct 23, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,981
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Explain to me exactly how Er was restored.
    What has Nineveh to do with Er? Stick to the point.
    I do not think you can find much in the way of sin under the Law which did not involve sacrifice. There was restoration, but the restoration came through the shedding of blood which pointed forward to the death of Christ (eg. Numbers 15:22-29). It was therefore retributive-- atonement had to be made (v.25). 'For without the shedding of blood there is no remission' (Hebrews 9:22). You may decide that the sacrifices were not punishment-- I think the bulls etc. might beg to differ.
    Well you have failed to disprove any of what I have written. Whatever you think of my OPs, you cannot deny that they are peppered with Biblical references, whereas you cannot even express your disagreement in Biblical terms.
     
  2. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,981
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is daft! How do you punish a sin??? Can you execute idolatry, or flog adultery? False dichotomy again!
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    I went back to the now closed thread to see if you responded to the particulars of my post. I found no such responses by you. Perhaps you are thinking of an earlier post on another thread where i quoted the same texts. However, in no previous thread did I point out the particulars of verses 10-11 as I have in the post that you did not respond to. Perhaps you overlooked it as there are no responses to the particulars of my post on that thread. I will repeat the post and please pay attention to the particulars that I put into rhetorical questions:

    Isa. 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
    11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

    One cannot get any clearer than the above language. Was the Son the object of God's wrath? ANSWER: "it pleased the Lord to bruise him....put him to grief". How could God be "pleased" to do that if there were no JUST basis to do it? Answer: he could not apart from a JUST basis! What is his purpose for being pleased, for bruising him, for putting him to grief? Answer: "make his soul an offering for FOR SIN." Why would he make such an offering for sin that included brusing him and putting him to grief? ANSWER: "he shall see the TRAVAIL of his soul AND BE SATISFIED." Why must he be "satisfied"? Better yet, WHY would it take this to "satisfy" him? Would not his perfect righteousness "satisfy" him sufficiently? That is your theory! There is something beyond mere sinless perfection that needs satisfaction that only be accomplished by being "pleased" to "bruise him" "put him to grief" and "travail" as a "sin offering"!! It is his wrath against sin and Christ legally taking the place of sinners and sin on the cross! Thus a PENAL satisfaction!

    Now, this is the obvious import of these two texts in this context and you must EXPLAIN IT AWAY.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Exactly. You can't punish a sin any more than God could justly punish one person or group for the sins of another. Neither can you transfer sin or substitute one for the sins of another. It is, as you say, daft. The issue is sin as a power and sinful actions as manifestations of a sinners sinfulness. This is the issue we are discussing- God cannot justly punish Jesus for the sins of another because the sin is inseparably linked to the sinner. Jesus can, however, bear our sins corporately...not only our sins but the sins of the whole world because He became a curse and tasted death for us.
     
  5. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I needn't explain it away. Christ bore our sins, was numbered among the transgressors, the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by his scourging we are healed. All of us have gone astray but God has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

    You insist this includes God being wrathful to Christ, punishing Him for our sins with our punishment in order to satisfy the demands of the Law. This is extra-biblical, and whether right or wrong the burden of proof is with you.

    You see, this is part of the road block we run into. It would be easy if you or I were dismissing Scripture. But we aren't. You are adding a context to Scripture, and whether right or wrong I am asking how and why you have come to that conclusion.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    That is precisely what you have done! You simply ignore the specifics of the post. Look at the questions and look at the words the questions are linked with in the text.

    God does not "bruise" and "put to grief" anyone just for the fun of it but it is the JUST recompense in being an "offering for sin". Your view does not need God being "satisfied" by infliction at all. Bruising and putting to grief is by definition infliction. It is this infliction by God that brought "travail" upon his "soul" and it is this kind of offering for sin that SATISFIES God just recompense toward sin and sinners. That is the natural import of the language. You either have to dissect and separate the words from the sense and meaning of the text or ignore it. you have chosen to ignore it.
     
    #46 The Biblicist, Oct 25, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2017
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    Certainly God can JUSTLY punish Jesus for the sins of others simply because he is acting as a SUBSTITUTE for others. What don't you understand about being a substitute?
     
  8. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Father offered Him as a guilt offering. It was the Fathers will to crush Him, putting Him to grief. If He would render Himself a guilt offering He will see His offspring, prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hands.

    What part of that says God was wrathful to Christ by punishing Him with the punishment due our sins in order to satisfy the demands of the Law in our stead as our forgiveness? Do you at least see that you are applying a context you systematically developed to this passage, or do you truly not understand the difference between the actual text and your interpretation?
     
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    What is the just basis for the Father to crush anyone or put anyone to grief or put any soul in "travail" in connection with an "offering for sin"? What basis would any judge have to bring travail upon anyone who stood before them?
     
  10. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I understand the concept. But you are assuming God would be just in doing this because you are assuming retributive justice is biblical.

    Is there a passage that states an innocent man, under the Law, may be justly punished for the crimes of a guilty man as a way of satisfying justice? No, of course not. In fact, Proverbs 17:15 says exactly the opposite. So why do you think it is just to substitute a innocent man for a guilty one?
     
  11. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The basis is God Himself. But this is off topic. I am asking for a reason to assume the contextual framework PSA does when it comes to the atonement.

    Why do you believe it is just to punish a righteous man in the place of a guilty man? You said because this is what a substitute is...But that's circular reasoning. Why is it just? How does this satisfy justice?
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    On the great day of Atonement an innocent lamb is laid upon the altar and the High priest confesses the sins of all the people over it while laying his hands on its head. This is the great type of Christ "the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." He is "made to be sin for us WHO KNEW NO SIN"

    You are tripping over your own feet and entangled in foolish thinking as this truth is self-evident in the types and in language you repeatedly explain away when the simple meaning is starring you right in the eyes.
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    Yes, and He is HOLY and JUST and that is precisely why his law is HOLY and JUST. The truth is looking you in the face but you can't see.



    Because God's Word says it is just! "He who KNEW NO SIN was MADE SIN"! Who made this innocent person to be sin? God did and that is what Isaiah 53 says over and over again but you just explain away the obvious. Why is it just for a person who knew no sin to be made sin for us? Why do you think it is just to slay a lamb without spot and blemish as a "sin offering" for God's people? Did not Christ freely offer himself to "satisfy" God's wrath against the sinner for his sins? It is so self-evident!
     
  14. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, the Law is holy and just. So is forgiveness and grace and divine wrath and justification and providence. Because of God, not because of His law. You seem to have a high regard for God's law, and this is a good thing. That you hold God's law as binding upon all God is rather than an expression of God Himself is a bit troubling, but not so much that we can't discuss the matter.
     
  15. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We already agreed that the Father offered Christ as a guilt offering, as a propitiation for the sins of the world. Yes, God made Him that knew no sin to be sin for us. Agreed.

    But that's not the topic of the OP. I am not defending what I believe on this thread and am starting to wonder if you are trying to conceal a flaw in your view by consistently challenging what you think I believe. The topic is PSA as Martin has defined and defended the theory. I've only identified ONE issue that needs to be addressed before looking at others.

    Before we can move on you need to prove that it is just to condemn the righteous in order to justify the wicked.
     
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    Who is it that is being made sin? Answer; THE JUST! Who is it that he is being made sin FOR? Answer: THE UNJUST!! Who is it that makes him so? Answer: GOD! Therefore, God says it is JUST to condemn THE JUST in behalf "for" "THE UNJUST" in order to JUSTIFY the wicked!

    Who is it that demands a ceremonial sacrifice that is "without spot and blemish"? Answer: God What does the typology of "without spot and blemish" mean? Answer: the type of THE JUST. Who is the typological Just sacrificed in behalf of? Answer; THE UNJUST. What is the nature of this sacrifice? Answer "FOR SIN" "FOR US" not either/or but BOTH. Why does God need satisfaction by sacrifice for sin and sinners? Answer: Because God's holy Law demands penal consequences for violation of its holy standards. Why does the Law's penal consequences need to be satisfied? Answer: Because God is Just and Holy!! Who demanded the penal conquences for violation of His Law? Answer: God did. Who satisfies both the righteous and penal demands of His Law? Answer: Jesus voluntarily satisfies both in behalf of, for, in the place of His people.

    Jon, I just don't know why you can't see the obvious? Your questions are nothing but loops of irrationale.
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    There is no forgiveness where there is no satisfaction of the Law's penalty! There is no grace where there is no satisfier of the Law's penalty.


    First, the law in principle IS LOVE. His Law is simply a revelation of His own Person and personal righteousness (Rom. 3:21-22). The Law manifests His holiness and defines for us what it is to be JUST. His law is more perfectly manifested in the LIFE of Christ. To separate God's Law as principle from God is to annihilate God Himself. That is precisely why Jesus denied he had come to destroy the Law but rather to fulfill it as that is the only possible response God can have to his law.

    I think you are reasoning from the Phariseeical perspective of the law, not according to its principle but according to its letter and as a Jewish covenant. That is entirely a different thing altogether.
     
  18. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am reasoning from the standpoint God's righteousness in Christ is a righteous manifested apart from the Law.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    You have done an incredible job in laying the truth out clearly and forcefully. Jon has an endless loop of irrationality in his line of arguments. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    444
    There is no such thing as righteousness at the expense of justice! No such righteousness of that kind exists in our court systems or in God's court system.

    Paul is referring to the life AND death of Christ as the satisfaction for sin in this context (Rom. 3:19-25).The righteousness manifested apart from the Law is found in the LIFE and DEATH of Christ - the incarnation and sacrifice.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...