Socinianism

[JonC]

I am relieved to hear that. So when you were saying all those times how objectionable it was to have penal substitution because God does not punish the innocent or acquit the guilty and you were using that argument in a debate about penal substitution which involved an innocent Jesus as the subject of the debate (which we all agree about) well, what were you trying to say if it was not that it was ridiculous that our sins were imputed to another person - namely Jesus?

No, those passages still apply because they define adpects of God's justice. God does not punish the innocent, He does not punish the Just, and He does not clear the guilty.

What I said is that it is not ridiculous to view sin as being imputed to Christ and righteous being imputed to us. He bore our sins and we bear His righteousness.

I was saying that our sin was imputed to Jesus and Jesus righteousness is imputed to us. He bore our sin and we bear His righteousness. He shared our death and we share His Life. He bore our image (the Son of Man; sinful flesh) and we bear His image.

I am not sure that you realize your shift in the conversation. Socinus rejected that our sins were imputed to Christ. This rejects Christ as bearing our sins. I agree Socinus was wrong. But then you went to God punishing the just to clear the guilty. That is equally a heresy.

What needs to be cleared up is your philosophy of justice and punishment. Beating around the bush to try and tie one another to some hetesy does not edify as it never gets to the philosophy behind PSA. I realize nobody (or few) today affirms the philosophy at the foundation of PSA, but adherents still acceot the conclusions. So we need to see if it is simply assumed or how it has been reworked to find out if PSA is valid or if it is just an echo of a failed 16th century philosophy.

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

 

[DaveXR650]

I am not sure that you realize your shift in the conversation. Socinus rejected that our sins were imputed to Christ. This rejects Christ as bearing our sins. I agree Socinus was wrong. But then you went to God punishing the just to clear the guilty. That is equally a heresy.

Christ is bearing our sins - how? We agree that he was not truly guilty. In fact he was innocent and remained innocent. So what bearing our sins means is that he bore the consequences. And by that I don't mean "consequences" as some use it, like Boyd does in the sense of violation of a speed limit can result in an accident, but I include the sentence for sin, the penalty of sin, and the wrath of God which is the result of our sin. While that may be an equal heresy in your mind, the question I ask is, whether that is a reasonable assumption, given what we know about what scripture says about sin, God's wrath, His role as final judge of everything and so on.

Now, you know as well as I do, that while you are under no obligation to see the above in this way, others do. Many others in fact, including the Reformers. This is not new or strange or my private philosophy. You certainly are not required to believe it. And, if we continue discussion, which I hope not, but if we do, we will have to get into the arguments against this - which I guarantee you are going to be identical to those of Socinus.

 

[JonC]

Christ is bearing our sins - how? We agree that he was not truly guilty. In fact he was innocent and remained innocent.

Bearing our sins, period. The Word became flesh, Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, is the Son of Man, shared our infirmity, was made like the brethren, was made sin, became a curse, shared our humanity.

I think we agree on Jesus bearing our sins, that God laid our iniquity on Him. We disagree about this meaning our sins were removed from us to be laid on Him.

I view Christ "bearing" in Him bearing our sins, God laying our iniquity on Him, in the same way we now bear His righteousness, God laying His righteousness on us (the Just for the unjust).

You redefine "bearing" when it comes to Jesus bearing our sins in comparison to us bearing His righteousness or one another's sorrows. This means you have to explain away passages describing God's justice. But if "bearing" has the same meaning (Jesus bears our sins so that we will bear His righteousness) then you could accept those passages as well because there is no contradiction. Jesus' suffering would be a result of our sin, the wages produced by our sin, the power of Satan that held mankind in bondage. But with Christ this would be an unearned wage. It being appointed man once to die and then the judgment Jesus was judged as righteous, became a life giving Spirit, defeated Satan, freed us from bondage. Although we die yet shall we live.

What we need to discuss is the reason we view this differently. It goes back to how we view justice (you seem to view justice as holding God in subjection while I am saying it is God's righteousness).

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

Now, you know as well as I do, that while you are under no obligation to see the above in this way, others do. Many others in fact, including the Reformers. This is not new or strange or my private philosophy. You certainly are not required to believe it. And, if we continue discussion, which I hope not, but if we do, we will have to get into the arguments against this - which I guarantee you are going to be identical to those of Socinus.

I agree that your view is not an individual position or a new view. Neither of ours are. This is an old disagreement. While it is relatively new, it is not new (it is centuries old).

I have already proved my arguments against Penal Substitution Theory are very different from Socinus' arguments. Socinus rejected Trinitarian doctrine and death entering the world through Adam's transgression. This influenced his arguments against the penal substitution theory.

While I believe God imputed our sins on Jesus Socinus rejected this and incorporated it into his argument against the theory. He viewed Jesus as coming into being with His birth, essentually a man choosing not to sin.

What needs to be addressed for an honest discussion is the philosophy at the foundation of your understanding. I do not know your position here because thus far yoy have refused to explain your faith (you assume it to be right and develop your conclusions).

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

We can continue to talk past each other but what Jesus went through in "bearing our sin in his own body" we can read as recorded in scripture. Once again, could a reasonable person look at that and say "That looks like punishment to me". I say yes, and there again, obviously I am not alone in this. If you want to say no, it was "satisfaction", then satisfaction of what. If God's honor was satisfied the result still looks like punishment to me. If it was justice that was satisfied then the case for it being punishment is even stronger. Both or either of those things would fall under the "purpose" of what happened. I call it punishment along with all the groups who believe PSA is a proper description. Others didn't specifically say punishment but left it as "satisfaction", without being more specific. I think Simons was OK with satisfaction and I believe satisfaction of justice. This is my own opinion but those who say it was satisfaction of divine justice but in a general way in that what Christ went through was sufficient to atone for all men's sin, everywhere and through time rather than enduring a specific amount of punishment for each and every sin of each and every elect individual - I have no quarrel with. In that I am in company with the Lutherans, and with Menno Simons and I'm not saying the Calvinists were wrong but since I don't believe the atonement was limited as in the "L" of TULIP, I am not inclined to go as far as them in that area.

As to the purpose, I say that was because God has as part of his revealed nature, a desire for justice, and a responsibility as well as a desire to extract justice from everyone who sins. Forgiveness is not possible in the simple way it is required of us because we have no responsibility as judges and we are told to defer seeking justice whenever possible - because God has promised to do so in his role as judge. Once again, although Socinus objected to this, he failed to think of God as a divine judge. The arguments about whether God does this by His free will or has to do this because he cannot do otherwise without violating His nature are not applicable here. Using another train of thought you could say all judgement is committed to Jesus, and as the sin bearer he has the absolute right to do so since he bore the sin of everyone in his own body. If you connect that thought to judgement then once again you are looking at bearing our sin as bearing our punishment.

I'm not really trying to convince you at this point. But honestly, you have for years followed people around on this forum looking for opportunities to attack penal substitution, which almost all of us on this forum hold dear. Recently you even went on a thread totally unrelated and interjected the subject again. I have said everything I know about the subject. You created this thread starting with a false attack on me by name. The fact that you are still on here as a moderator is a puzzlement to me but ultimately it just reflects on the site itself.