Does this keep Calvies (and Minnies) happy?

[9Marksfan]

Here is the Cliff Notes version.

Penal substitution assumes that the victim is being punished in the place of another, and that his punishment satisfies the moral debt of the entire world, in the case of unlimited atonement, or just the elect in the case of limited atonement.

Correct so far.

Penal substitution is wrong for philosophical, theological, and Biblical reasons.

I disagree with all three objections.

First, to punish an innocent man for the crimes of another is immoral.

Why? What if the innocent man willingly accepts the punishment? What if the Father and the Son agree that this is the ONLY way in which God the Father can both be just and the justifier of the ungodly?

Secondly, it violates the character of God.

You don't say how.

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him. He has ut Him to grief" Is 53:10 NKJV

And Finally, God prohibits Israel from holding the sons responsible for the sins of the fathers.

That's because they are sinful themselves - "no man can redeem the life of another" - because all men are inherently sinful - except Christ. He alone was qualified to redeem us, because He was sinless. Is 53:10 is the classic verse (and Is 53 the classic chapter) that teaches that penal substitution is eminently biblical.

I'm not sure how to answer your other question. Can you reword it, or answer it yourself so I can understand it better?

What I meant was that, since the Father clearly sent the Son and gave Him
for the sins of the world - how does that fit in with the arbitration theory? The arbiter would then decide on the "alternative" payment - and ask Christ if He were wiling to pay it - the idea would not have originated with Christ to "solve" the problem.

[9Marksfan]

Yes, justification is not the declaration that we are "not guilty"; we are certainly guilty. But neither is it a declaration of "you are moral."

I didn't say that - clearly we are NOT moral - we are declared righteous - that is what dikaioo means.

[quoteJustification is God's declaration that we are "in the right" with him.[/quote]

Well, if you'd rather say it that way, OK.

But remember, his forgiveness is not based on our wearing the righteousness of Christ.

No, but our acceptance is.

Forgiveness is an act of grace and has no other basis than the kindness and mercy of God.

No, no - a MILLION times no!!! - were that the case, Christ would not have had to die!

In Him we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, the forgiveness of sins... Eph 1:7 NKJV

...without shedding of blood, there is NO remission. Heb 9:27b NKJV

[9Marksfan]

It is nobody's righteousness. We are simply being declared to be "in the right" as BroRog has stated.

So why does 2 Cor 5:21 say that we become the righteousness of God IN HIM? According to your view, those last two words are not only superfluous but wrong!

[drew]

Penal substitution is wrong for philosophical, theological, and Biblical reasons. First, to punish an innocent man for the crimes of another is immoral. Secondly, it violates the character of God. And Finally, God prohibits Israel from holding the sons responsible for the sins of the fathers.

You are correct. The penal substitution position, as widely held, is undermined by Romans 8:3 where Paul declares that it is sin, not Jesus that is condemned on the cross:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,...

[drew]

So why does 2 Cor 5:21 say that we become the righteousness of God IN HIM? According to your view, those last two words are not only superfluous but wrong!

Because, as has been argued in detail elsewhere on this board, the context shows that Paul is talking about our roles as ambassadors - as the foot soldiers who actually implement what is fundamentally God's own covenant faithfulness - His "acting rightly" in accordance with His covenant promises.

Paul never intended this text to imply that we are somehow determined to possess God's or Christ's righteousness.

As always, one can read all sorts of things into individual snippets of text if proper consideration of context is not brought to bear.

[9Marksfan]

You are correct. The penal substitution position, as widely held, is undermined by Romans 8:3 where Paul declares that it is sin, not Jesus that is condemned on the cross:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,...

The NIV is a very bad translation here - in fact the phrase is rendered meaningless - what does "condemned sin in sinful man" mean in the context? That Christ was sinful? That man was going to be condemned for his sin (true, of course, but meaningless in the context of "and so")? The word sarx means many things but it frequently means the human body - and that is the most fitting meaning here - God condemned sin in Christ's body. It also ties in with 1 Pet 2:24 "who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree".

[9Marksfan]

Because, as has been argued in detail elsewhere on this board, the context shows that Paul is talking about our roles as ambassadors - as the foot soldiers who actually implement what is fundamentally God's own covenant faithfulness - His "acting rightly" in accordance with His covenant promises.

Paul never intended this text to imply that we are somehow determined to possess God's or Christ's righteousness.

As always, one can read all sorts of things into individual snippets of text if proper consideration of context is not brought to bear.

What does "accepted IN the beloved" mean to you, then?

[theBelovedDisciple]

When I go into Spiritual Warfare....I'm certainly not 'trusting' in my 'own' Righteousness .. especially when dealing with the powers of darkness and the accuser of the brethern... a person does not stand a chance... especially when Satan is accusing the 'saints' day and night...

Paul teaches in Ephesians as to having 'on'the breastplate of RIGHTEOUSNESS... is this my own?.... I think not...... If we Don't have Christ's Righteousness.. then whose is it?

and ............ How can one have 'on' the breastplate of Righteoussness .....when the belief is we 'don't have His Righteousness..... or its not given to His Children..... that does not make one bit of sense....

Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having 'on the breastplate of righteousness';

[drew]

The NIV is a very bad translation here - in fact the phrase is rendered meaningless - what does "condemned sin in sinful man" mean in the context? That Christ was sinful? That man was going to be condemned for his sin (true, of course, but meaningless in the context of "and so")? The word sarx means many things but it frequently means the human body - and that is the most fitting meaning here - God condemned sin in Christ's body. It also ties in with 1 Pet 2:24 "who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree".

The point is that it is sin - not Jesus - that is the target of God's condemnation on the cross. So the commonly held view that "God punished Jesus instead of us" is actually not quite accurate. God wanted to condemn sin, not Jesus - and this is exactly what Romans 8:3 says He did. Jesus dies, of course, but not because God "needs to punish someone". God needs to punish and condemn sin.

Here are other translations. They all agree - it is sin that is the target of God's wrath and fury, not Jesus:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh...

for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh...

For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,...

[drew]

What does "accepted IN the beloved" mean to you, then?

Where are you getting this phrase from?

[drew]

.. If we Don't have Christ's Righteousness.. then whose is it?

Why do you assume that if we are declared to be righteous, we must "get" some other person's righteous.

When a doctor declares you to be healthy, do you get some other person's health?

When the lawcourt acquits a defendant - effectively declaring him to be "in the right" - will the reporters ask him: "Whose righteousness did you get?".

Of course not.

We are given a status of righteousness - the status of being "in the right" with God. We are not being God's (or Christ's) own righteousness.

[threebigrocks]

Why do you assume that if we are declared to be righteous, we must "get" some other person's righteous.

When a doctor declares you to be healthy, do you get some other person's health?

When the lawcourt acquits a defendant - effectively declaring him to be "in the right" - will the reporters ask him: "Whose righteousness did you get?".

Of course not.

We are given a status of righteousness - the status of being "in the right" with God. We are not being God's (or Christ's) own righteousness.

Thing is - until the doctor judges one healthy, and until the judge passes final judgement you don't actually have anything, right? Until you get a clean bill of health, you assume you are still sick. Until you are judged, you don't know if you are a prisoner or free.

You are correct, both of you. Until we are judged we don't have our own righteousness but Christ's. ONCE we are judged then we gain our own. Not before then.

[apothanein kerdos]

What did the sacrifice in the Old Testament represent? More importantly, what did Yom Kippur represent?

Fact is, Christ came as a willing sacrifice. Now the Ransom Theory, Satisfaction Theory, and some others are all true...but so is Penal Substitution. I simply don't see propitiation in the other theories - but it does exist in penal substitution.

Legally we are in trouble with God and justice must be served. For God not to exact justice would mean God is not just. That justice, however, is fulfilled on the cross. This doesn't show a mean God - it shows a God who loves us so much that He is willing to sacrifice Himself in our place. Of course, I believe you need the other theories, but you also need penal substitution, otherwise God's justice is called into question.

[Cyberseeker]

The cross had to SATISFY God's justice. God's law isn't just rules to be broken! Sin is an offense against God himself and carries an automatic penalty. And what is that penalty? (Ezekiel 18: 4)

Furthermore, God will not cheapen justice by "turning a blind eye" or just "letting off" those who sin. (Job 34:11-12, Psalm 7:11) God never passes over sin! Yet 2 Corinthians 5: 19 says,

"that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them."

How can God do this (on what legal grounds?) without compromising his own justice?

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

In other words, the cross satisfied God's justice by punishing our sins in Christ, who died for us. Romans 3: 25 says,

"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement. (a propitiation)"

Why did God do this?

"He did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

Cyber

[Chimon]

I don't feel like this addresses enough of the arguement between Calvinists and Arminians. That is, this isn't enough of what they are arguing about, as I see it. For example, we don't have anythign here about predestination versus free will, enternal security, total depravity, election and irrestible grace, etc.

That is, I think this basically sidesteps the argument.