Note to Nick: Nick, this is in no way an attack on you but is a defense in gentleness and reverence using both Scripture and logic to destroy the speculations that you have raised against the knowledge of God. I pray that you will be able to see and comprehend that Penal Substitution is the only way that God can justify the ungodly while He remains just.
I am going to take three quotes from Nick’s article to show that he fails to expose Penal Substitution as contrary to Scripture, blasphemous, and heretical:
Morally and rationally, the view fails because it entails an innocent
individual, Jesus, receiving a punishment. Punishment, especially one coming
from a just God, cannot be inflicted on the innocent, nor can a punishment be
transferred. A just judge can rule that a guilty individual either be pardoned
or punished, but the guilt can never be transferred. Because sin is first and
foremost a personal offense to God, the option to pardon or punish is entirely
His.
The view would fail morally and rationally if an innocent individual received a punishment in the place of the guilty if that innocent individual was unwilling to receive that punishment as a means of releasing the guilty from the punishment he rightly deserves. However, there would be no moral or rational failure if an innocent individual was willing to receive a punishment in the place of the guilty and ANY judge would be just to transfer the guilt of the law-breaker to the innocent law-keeper and to transfer the innocence of the law-keeper to the guilty law-breaker. No one forced Jesus Christ to receive the punishment of the guilty in order to release them from their punishment but He willingly laid down His life for His sheep – “No one has taken it [His life] away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative” (John 10:18).
You said, “A just judge can rule that a guilty individual either be pardoned or punished, but the guilt can never be transferred.” Actually a just judge who is sworn to uphold the law cannot rule that a guilty individual be pardoned and that judge remain just. An unjust judge could rule that the guilty be pardoned but not a just judge. A just judge could only rule that the guilty be punished. God is a just Judge and will not arbitrarily pardon the guilty – if He did then He would be unjust! So in actuality in your scheme of things God would not be just if He justified or pardoned the guilty without upholding His own law against those who offend Him. Also if all that God has to do in order to remain just in justifying the guilty is to exercise His option to pardon then Christ died needlessly. Penal Substitution is the only way that God can justify the guilty because it is the only way that His law is upheld and He remains just.
What God reveals as unacceptable behavior for men is likewise unacceptable
behavior for God. Man should not tell lies, God does not tell lies. Man should
not murder or punish an innocent person, God cannot and would not murder or
punish an innocent person.
Let’s take this quote in two sections: “What God reveals as unacceptable behavior for men is likewise unacceptable behavior for God. Man should not tell lies, God does not tell lies.” Precisely the point and reason God does not have the option to pardon apart from His sentence of condemnation being fulfilled either against the sinner or against a substitute on the sinner’s behalf. Even the Old Testament saints were pardoned based their faith that their sins would be paid for by another – the whole sacrificial system and the Word of God witnessed to this truth (see Romans 3:21-26).
Next you said, “Man should not murder or punish an innocent person, God cannot and would not murder or punish an innocent person.” There is no law against an innocent substitute willingly paying the debt or the penalty of another. As long as there is an agreement between the judge and the willing substitute that the debt or penalty incurred by the substitute will completely satisfy the demands of the law and the court against the guilty party then the judge remains just and has upheld the law while the guilty goes free. Even if the penalty paid by the willing innocent substitute is capital punishment then the substitute has freely given his life as a ransom and has not been murdered.
Also the law of non-contradiction applies here – if the option to pardon or punish is entirely God’s then God also has the option of punishing a willing and able substitute in the place of others. If God does not have the option to punish the innocent then neither does He have the option to pardon the guilty.
Also, those passages do not clearly teach penal substitution: 2
Cor 5:15 and 1
Pt 3:18 are some very weak attempts to garner credibility, they don’t come
close. Isaiah
53 is the closest to such a notion, but when read carefully does not result
in Penal-Substitution either, especially considering the few direct NT
references to Is 53 (53:4,
Mat 8:14-17; 53:5-6, 9, 1 Pt 2:18-25; 53:7-8, Acts 8:30-35; 53:12, Lk 22:37, Mk
15:27-29*) don’t teach Penal Substitution at all, quite the opposite in
fact. The NT is abundantly clear the cross was an act by wicked men, NEVER is it
said to be a point where Jesus suffered Divine Wrath.
Actually those passages and others do clearly teach Penal Substitution and a careful reading of Isaiah 53 establishes the absolute fact of Penal Substitution – Jesus did suffer Divine wrath – “But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief” (Isaiah 53:10).
The New Testament is also abundantly clear that not only was the cross an act by wicked men but that it was also an act of a holy God – “This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to the cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:23). What men intended for evil, God intended for good.
And here is the beauty and grandeur of the wisdom, ways, and power of God – not only was God right to punish a willing innocent man in the place of the guilty, He was also right to raise that Man from the dead because the punishment and death He endured was not for sins that He committed but was as a substitute for those whose lawless deeds would be forgiven on the basis of faith in Christ and not by works of the Law. “But God raised Him up again putting and end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power” (Acts 2:24).
Now what do you think would be the response of a guilty person who deserved the death penalty be to a willing substitute who took his deserved punishment and then that substitute was raised from the dead because he was in fact innocent? Would not the proper response be that the guilty man would no longer live for himself but for him who loved him and gave himself up for him? – see 2 Corinthians 5:15.
Penal Substitution is God's plan of salvation and it is God's Gospel - 1 Corinthians 15:3!
10 comments:
Hi,
Thank you for this post, I don't take this as an attack at all.
Here are my comments to your post:
Olan: The view would fail morally and rationally ... if that innocent individual was unwilling
Nick: Whether the individual was willing or not is not really relevant. If someone deserves the death penalty, whether or not a innocent substitute is willing to receive the death penalty is irrelevant. The law cannot put an innocent person to death, regardless of how willing they are. It defeats the whole purpose and justice of death penalty.
Olan: ANY judge would be just to transfer the guilt of the law-breaker to the innocent law-keeper and to transfer the innocence of the law-keeper to the guilty law-breaker
Nick: I respectfully and firmly disagree. This makes a mockery of the justice system and I don't believe you could find a single successful justice system in history which operated on that principle. The whole point of justice being blind is that everything is black and white, the innocent cannot be condemned and the guilty cannot be called innocent.
Further, and most importantly, I don't believe there is Biblical warrant for your two claims here.
Olan: No one forced Jesus Christ to receive the punishment of the guilty
Nick: Just so we don't misunderstand eachother, I never claimed Jesus was forced.
Olan: Actually a just judge who is sworn to uphold the law cannot rule that a guilty individual be pardoned and that judge remain just.
Nick: In our world today the laws are written so that the Judge has the ability to pardon and/or not give the full sentence. No judge can ever do something like transfer the death penalty to another.
Olan: Also if all that God has to do in order to remain just in justifying the guilty is to exercise His option to pardon then Christ died needlessly.
Nick: Christ's death was not strictly necessary, it was only necessary in so far as God chose the Cross for His plan of salvation.
Olan: Penal Substitution is the only way that God can justify the guilty because it is the only way that His law is upheld and He remains just.
Nick: But if you think about that justice system, there is nothing just about it. Punishing an innocent person doesn't fit any justice scheme. To say God was upholding His justice by punishing an innocent doesn't make sense.
Olan: Precisely the point and reason God does not have the option to pardon apart from His sentence of condemnation being fulfilled either against the sinner or against a substitute
Nick: I don't see any Scriptural evidence that a substitute can receive the death penalty on behalf of the guilty.
Olan: Even the Old Testament saints were pardoned based their faith that their sins would be paid for by another – the whole sacrificial system and the Word of God witnessed to this truth
Nick: I have explicit proof of OT saints making atonement (propitiating God's wrath) without themselves having to undergo that wrath. See Phinehas (Num 25:1-13) and Moses (Deut 9:16-20) as two good examples and who both prefigured Christ. As for the sacrificial system, it did not operate on an Penal Substitution basis. For example:
(1) The Passover Lamb was never an object of God's wrath, nor was God's wrath on the Israelites for the Passover (Ex 11:4-7)
(2) If someone was too poor to afford a lamb for their sin offering, they could use a sack of flour instead (Lev 5:7,11). That would be totally illogical if P-Sub was the system in place.
(3) The Scapegoat was never actually killed, which is the last thing one would expect if P-Sub was the system.
(4) In places like Lev 3 it talks about sacrifices NOT dealing with sin but instead peace/fellowship sacrifices. However, the animal is still killed in a manner very similar to the sin offering. This is likewise illogical if P-Sub was in place, because all we would expect for a sin offering occurs yet the offering is not on account of sins.
Olan: There is no law against an innocent substitute willingly paying the debt or the penalty of another. As long as there is an agreement between the judge and the willing substitute...Even if the penalty paid by the willing innocent substitute is capital punishment then the substitute has freely given his life as a ransom and has not been murdered.
Nick: What you describe goes against basic principles of justice, and no law in the Bible comes anywhere near allowing the transfer of death penalty. Also there actually are laws/teachings against it. For example Eze 18 says:
19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
Olan: Also the law of non-contradiction applies here – if the option to pardon or punish is entirely God’s then God also has the option of punishing a willing and able substitute in the place of others. If God does not have the option to punish the innocent then neither does He have the option to pardon the guilty.
Nick: I don't consider that an accurate use of the law of non contradiction, nor do I believe the claim can be applied "oppositely" like that. But just taking your own logic as it stands, you undermine your own argument because using your logic you just admitted P-Sub truly isn't required but instead an option. You might want to rethink that argument.
If someone offends me, I have the option of forgiving them or punishing them, however I DONT have the option of punishing an innocent person. Forgiveness at it's heart is unconditional, to say you forgive someone but still inflict that punishment (on another) is not true forgiveness. If you owe me $10 and I forgive you, that means nobody will owe me $10. If I still charge someone for that $10 then I didn't really forgive you.
Olan: Actually those passages and others do clearly teach Penal Substitution and a careful reading of Isaiah 53 establishes the absolute fact of Penal Substitution
Nick: I've gone over Is 53 in my opening Debate Essay, and I gave passages for it, so unless you interact with those you cannot simply say its clearly P-Sub.
Olan: The New Testament is also abundantly clear that not only was the cross an act by wicked men but that it was also an act of a holy God – (Acts 2:23). What men intended for evil, God intended for good.
Nick: I would give a huge amen to this, this is what Is 53:10 means, it means God predestined the Passion. But you got one crucial fact mixed up here, God predestining a 'bad situation' does not at all mean God is punishing. The strongest proof is your last sentence: What man intended for evil, God intended for good...this is a quote from Gen 50:20. Was Joseph ever under God's wrath? Was God punishing Joseph? No and No! Was God punishing Job when He let the devil hurt Job? No. So what has been proven here is that just because God causes a bad thing to happen, doesn't mean its due to His wrath. Thus God did send Jesus knowing what would happen, and He was not pleased with the murder of His Son, but none of that means He was punishing Him!
It's interesting you quote Acts 2:23-24 which contrasts the murder to God raising the just Man from the dead. That doesn't look like God was punishing Him.
Olan: The view would fail morally and rationally ... if that innocent individual was unwilling
Nick: Whether the individual was willing or not is not really relevant. If someone deserves the death penalty, whether or not a innocent substitute is willing to receive the death penalty is irrelevant. The law cannot put an innocent person to death, regardless of how willing they are. It defeats the whole purpose and justice of death penalty.Actually Nick the only way that the view of P-Sub would fail morally and rationally is if an innocent but unwilling individual was forced to pay the penalty of the guilty. You are right that the law cannot put an innocent man to death for crimes that he didn’t commit as long as you understand that it would be wrong without his consent and willingness to pay the debt of another. But you are wrong to say that it cannot put an innocent man to death for crimes that he didn’t commit in order for him to willingly uphold the justice of the law and pay the penalty of the guilty. You attempt to establish your claim by saying, “This makes a mockery of the justice system and I don't believe you could find a single successful justice system in history which operated on that principle.” Because no justice system in history has operated on that principle doesn’t establish that it wouldn’t and couldn’t but only establishes the truth of Scripture why it hasn’t – “For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die” (Romans 5:7). You see, the problem is that men are unwilling to die for the guilty and therefore there has never been but one case in all of history where the just died for the unjust, the innocent died for the guilty, and the godly died for the ungodly – “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him” (Romans 5:6-9).
Do you not see that pardoning the guilty without the law being upheld is exactly what makes a mockery of justice? To allow the guilty to go free without the penalty of the law being upheld is injustice not justice. Justice demands that the law be upheld. You said, “In our world today the laws are written so that the Judge has the ability to pardon and/or not give the full sentence.” Is there any justice in that? Isn’t this the very reason that we know for sure that the world’s justice system is corrupt and that many people with money can commit murder and get away with it while others may pay a more severe sentence for the exact same crimes that others have committed and the basis for such being either their skin color or social standing?
Also Nick, what you are attempting to establish as just is an unprincipled pardon or pardon without principle. While the justice systems of our world may allow unprincipled pardons the end result is never just but always unjust. But you are confusing categories – God does not allow unprincipled pardons because of their unjust nature – the law has not been upheld in such a system. Our forgiveness from the penalty of the law in God’s system (which is truly just and righteous) is based solely on principled pardon – the law must be upheld or else God is unjust and a liar. God does not offer an unprincipled and unjust pardon to anyone and He cannot without being unjust Himself. This is why Jesus Christ is the only name under heaven given whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). God would be unjust to offer unprincipled pardons and if He weren’t then He was unjust in not sparing His own Son but delivering Him over for us all (Romans 8:32).
You said, "If someone offends me, I have the option of forgiving them or punishing them, however I DONT have the option of punishing an innocent person. Forgiveness at it's heart is unconditional, to say you forgive someone but still inflict that punishment (on another) is not true forgiveness. If you owe me $10 and I forgive you, that means nobody will owe me $10. If I still charge someone for that $10 then I didn't really forgive you.
Your example of forgiveness completely fails to illustrate the issue that we are debating because again you have made a categorical mistake in the discussion. Let me put it in the proper category: if you had a law that required as its penalty for violation a $10 debt and you forgave the debt without the $10 being paid then you are a liar concerning your own law and are unjust. You would now be guilty of letting the guilty go free without the principle of the law being upheld. However, you could allow an innocent person who was willing to pay the $10 in order to uphold the law and allow the guilty to go free pay the $10 so that you could justly forgive the guilty. Your forgiveness then would be unconditional as far as the guilty is concerned (he did nothing to secure his forgiveness) but it would not be unprincipled.
Olan: You are right that the law cannot put an innocent man to death for crimes that he didn’t commit as long as you understand that it would be wrong without his consent and willingness to pay the debt of another.
Nick: I consider this a category mistake. What the law can/can't do in this situation is not dependent on willingness. The issue is whether the executioner can put an innocent man to death.
Olan:Because no justice system in history has operated on that principle doesn’t establish that it wouldn’t and couldn’t but only establishes the truth of Scripture why it hasn’t – “For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die” (Romans 5:7).
Nick: So what your affirming is that no justice system in history operated like that? If so, then to me that makes P-Sub a longshot right there. I'm not sure why you quote Rom 5:7, because it talks of "dying for a RIGHTEOUS man," which P-Sub doesn't advocate. Why would Paul say rarely does someone die for a righteous man if Penal Substitution was what he had in mind?
Olan: You see, the problem is that men are unwilling to die for the guilty and therefore there has never been but one case in all of history where the just died for the unjust, the innocent died for the guilty, and the godly died for the ungodly
Nick: But realize what you just said: Men ARE willing and have "died for" RIGHTEOUS and good men! How could Paul be talking of P-Sub if people are dying for righteous men? It doesn't make sense.
Olan: Do you not see that pardoning the guilty without the law being upheld is exactly what makes a mockery of justice? To allow the guilty to go free without the penalty of the law being upheld is injustice not justice. Justice demands that the law be upheld.
Nick: But the P-Sub "solution" doesn't end up upholding justice, so your making a demand on me whic your not keeping yourself.
Also, the very term "pardon" is an executive power, which means the one in authority can justly forgive the debt on whatever terms he chooses (eg an apology). God choosing to save us in the first place shows that this cannot be confined to a purely legal realm.
Olan: You said, “In our world today the laws are written so that the Judge has the ability to pardon and/or not give the full sentence.” Is there any justice in that? Isn’t this the very reason that we know for sure that the world’s justice system is corrupt and that many people with money can commit murder and get away with it while others may pay a more severe sentence for the exact same crimes that others have committed and the basis for such being either their skin color or social standing?
Nick: There are corrupt judges out there, but the power of pardoning and such is not in itself corrupt. A judge doesn't always have to hand out a max sentence, if other factors lead them to think the full punishment is not required.
Olan: Also Nick, what you are attempting to establish as just is an unprincipled pardon or pardon without principle. While the justice systems of our world may allow unprincipled pardons the end result is never just but always unjust. But you are confusing categories – God does not allow unprincipled pardons because of their unjust nature – the law has not been upheld in such a system. Our forgiveness from the penalty of the law in God’s system (which is truly just and righteous) is based solely on principled pardon – the law must be upheld or else God is unjust and a liar. God does not offer an unprincipled and unjust pardon to anyone and He cannot without being unjust Himself. This is why Jesus Christ is the only name under heaven given whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). God would be unjust to offer unprincipled pardons and if He weren’t then He was unjust in not sparing His own Son but delivering Him over for us all (Romans 8:32).
Nick: I never argued for "unprincipled pardon," nor do I see how that term even makes sense because pardoning is a specific power and the one pardoning can do so on whatever terms they choose. To say God pardons but still punishes someone is a contradiction.
Olan: Your example of forgiveness completely fails to illustrate the issue that we are debating because again you have made a categorical mistake in the discussion. Let me put it in the proper category: if you had a law that required as its penalty for violation a $10 debt and you forgave the debt without the $10 being paid then you are a liar concerning your own law and are unjust. You would now be guilty of letting the guilty go free without the principle of the law being upheld. However, you could allow an innocent person who was willing to pay the $10 in order to uphold the law and allow the guilty to go free pay the $10 so that you could justly forgive the guilty. Your forgiveness then would be unconditional as far as the guilty is concerned (he did nothing to secure his forgiveness) but it would not be unprincipled.
Nick: Yes, if the matter was strict justice, nobody could ever be forgiven. The very concept of "mercy" would not be valid. That's why I don't believe salvation was fundamentally or primarily a legal transaction.
I also don't believe it's correct to say you "forgive" a debt if it still has to be paid.
And a cash example where anyone can pay it doesn't transfer over to a death-penalty transfer situation. Even the OT had laws where someone could be pardoned or sentence reduced, while other laws required death-penalty.
Olan:Because no justice system in history has operated on that principle doesn’t establish that it wouldn’t and couldn’t but only establishes the truth of Scripture why it hasn’t – “For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die” (Romans 5:7).
Nick: So what your affirming is that no justice system in history operated like that? If so, then to me that makes P-Sub a longshot right there. I'm not sure why you quote Rom 5:7, because it talks of "dying for a RIGHTEOUS man," which P-Sub doesn't advocate. Why would Paul say rarely does someone die for a righteous man if Penal Substitution was what he had in mind?
Maybe you didn’t read Romans 5:6 and 5:8 and that is why you don’t understand that Paul was establishing the truth of penal substitution because those verses are establishing the truth that Jesus Christ the only Righteous man died not for the righteous and good but for sinners. This makes the truth of God’s amazing love all the more amazing.
Olan: Your example of forgiveness completely fails to illustrate the issue that we are debating because again you have made a categorical mistake in the discussion. Let me put it in the proper category: if you had a law that required as its penalty for violation a $10 debt and you forgave the debt without the $10 being paid then you are a liar concerning your own law and are unjust. You would now be guilty of letting the guilty go free without the principle of the law being upheld. However, you could allow an innocent person who was willing to pay the $10 in order to uphold the law and allow the guilty to go free pay the $10 so that you could justly forgive the guilty. Your forgiveness then would be unconditional as far as the guilty is concerned (he did nothing to secure his forgiveness) but it would not be unprincipled.
Nick: Yes, if the matter was strict justice, nobody could ever be forgiven. The very concept of "mercy" would not be valid.Our forgiveness is a matter of strict justice because God is not a man that He should lie and the penalty for violating His law must be upheld for this very reason. Penal Substitution is the only just, law-upholding, mercy giving, principled pardon that a Holy God can offer and still maintain His own strict justice. Under strict justice nobody could be forgiven under your scheme of the atonement because an unprincipled pardon makes the one doing the pardoning unjust. However under strict justice people can be forgiven under Penal Substitution (God’s scheme of the atonement) because in it He gives a principled pardon whereby the principle of the law has been upheld and He is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).
Also you say that the very concept of “mercy” would not be valid. That isn’t true. Mercy is established, proven, and offered as a gift through the principled pardon which is made available to the guilty based on the penalty having been paid by the substitute – “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).
Olan: Maybe you didn’t read Romans 5:6 and 5:8 and that is why you don’t understand that Paul was establishing the truth of penal substitution because those verses are establishing the truth that Jesus Christ the only Righteous man died not for the righteous and good but for sinners. This makes the truth of God’s amazing love all the more amazing.
Nick: I agree Jesus died for sinners, what I'm saying is that Paul talks about people "dying for" men who are "righteous" which I don't see how it fits if Penal Substitution is what Paul means by "dying for." I agree the amazing love is brought out that we were not worth "dying for," but being contrasted to righteous men worth "dying for" doesn't make sense in a P-Sub paragraph.
Olan: Our forgiveness is a matter of strict justice because God is not a man that He should lie and the penalty for violating His law must be upheld for this very reason.
Nick: But 'forgiveness' doesn't fit in a purely legal system. Justification is more than legal, and that's where the Reformers went off course.
Olan: Penal Substitution is the only just, law-upholding, mercy giving, principled pardon that a Holy God can offer and still maintain His own strict justice.
Nick: The conclusion doesn't flow from the premise. Turning around and punishing an innocent party doesn't fit any justice scheme. I see nowhere in Scripture where transfer of the death penalty takes place, and unless you can show me Scriptura support, you're begging the question with P-Sub.
Olan: Under strict justice nobody could be forgiven under your scheme of the atonement because an unprincipled pardon makes the one doing the pardoning unjust. However under strict justice people can be forgiven under Penal Substitution (God’s scheme of the atonement) because in it He gives a principled pardon whereby the principle of the law has been upheld and He is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).
Nick: Your definition of 'pardon' is not correct. You cannot 'pardon' someone and still dish out the punishment. A pardon means the charges are dropped. Period. What you are describing is a justice system where God 'pardons' someone in the electric chair so that they can go free, yet leaves the electric chair open waiting for someone else to step in and fill it. This "floating death penalty" is neither truly pardon nor truly justice.
Olan: Also you say that the very concept of “mercy” would not be valid. That isn’t true. Mercy is established, proven, and offered as a gift through the principled pardon which is made available to the guilty based on the penalty having been paid by the substitute – “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).
Nick: A lot of this hangs on how your interpreting Rom 3:24f. The Inspired word in that text was "propitiation," which means to turn away (appease) wrath, not transfer it. That's the definition. Based on this very text, God is not transferring the death penalty. Also, the term "redemption" is used, but that term is not about transferring of the death penalty either. So the very terms the Holy Spirit used in God's Word point away from P-Sub
Nick: I agree Jesus died for sinners, what I'm saying is that Paul talks about people "dying for" men who are "righteous" which I don't see how it fits if Penal Substitution is what Paul means by "dying for." I agree the amazing love is brought out that we were not worth "dying for," but being contrasted to righteous men worth "dying for" doesn't make sense in a P-Sub paragraph.Nick, you establish Penal Substitution in your own response here. You agree that Jesus died for sinners – not for men worth dying for – and this is the very reason Paul mentions that men might be willing to die for someone who is “worth dying for” but not for the unworthy. This contrasts God’s love to the world’s love and establishes the love of God as an out of this world kind of love – through Penal Substitution (Romans 5:8).
Olan: Our forgiveness is a matter of strict justice because God is not a man that He should lie and the penalty for violating His law must be upheld for this very reason.
Nick: But 'forgiveness' doesn't fit in a purely legal system. Justification is more than legal, and that's where the Reformers went off course.You are right – justification is more than legal – it is also based on mercy and grace but it is legal. What you attempt to establish as justification is less than legal and is therefore illegal. And if God is illegal in justifying the ungodly then God is unjust. Our justification is a matter of strict justice and this is where the RCC went off course, the Reformers got it right and therefore protested against such heresy.
In a matter of strict justice the only pardon that can be given is a principled pardon whereby first and foremost the one giving the pardon does so in a legal manner which upholds the law. So in a matter of strict justice you cannot pardon someone without dealing out the punishment. So under strict justice the only pardon that can legally be offered is one of Penal Substitution. This is how God pardons – God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to us as the penalty for sin – and this is how He is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).
Nick: Your definition of 'pardon' is not correct. You cannot 'pardon' someone and still dish out the punishment. A pardon means the charges are dropped. Period.It is your definition of pardon that is not correct. You can pardon someone based solely on the charges being paid by another. In this case who has done the pardoning?
Also, according to your definition that a pardon means the charges are dropped, on what basis does the one giving the pardon issue the pardon?
Olan: Nick, you establish Penal Substitution in your own response here. You agree that Jesus died for sinners – not for men worth dying for – and this is the very reason Paul mentions that men might be willing to die for someone who is “worth dying for” but not for the unworthy.
Nick: Yes, I agree Jesus died for sinners, but "die for" doesn't mean Psub. A fireman who dies rescuing a man in a fire "dies for" him, but there was nothing penal substitution about that. What you are missing is that WHY would someone ever want or need to "die for" a RIGHTEOUS man. A righteous man has no punishment to transfer by definition.
Olan: You are right – justification is more than legal – it is also based on mercy and grace but it is legal. What you attempt to establish as justification is less than legal and is therefore illegal. And if God is illegal in justifying the ungodly then God is unjust.
Nick: You misunderstood me. An adopted child has a certain "legal" relationship with his adopted father, but the relationship goes BEYOND legal. To limit it to a legal relationship is a distortion. Thus it is not a matter of STRICT justice. So when you say I'm advocating "less than legal," that is not what I'm getting at. You cannot have mercy and grace sitting along side STRICT justice.
Olan: It is your definition of pardon that is not correct. You can pardon someone based solely on the charges being paid by another. In this case who has done the pardoning? Also, according to your definition that a pardon means the charges are dropped, on what basis does the one giving the pardon issue the pardon?
Nick: How is my definition of pardon incorrect? The term means to drop the charges against someone. You cannot explain a "pardon" by letting another step into the electric chair in place of the pardoned individual.
The basis of offering a pardon rests in the sole pleasure of the one issuing it. That's why God sometimes let men repent and live while at other times he would kill them immediately.
Nick: Yes, I agree Jesus died for sinners, but "die for" doesn't mean Psub. A fireman who dies rescuing a man in a fire "dies for" him, but there was nothing penal substitution about that. What you are missing is that WHY would someone ever want or need to "die for" a RIGHTEOUS man. A righteous man has no punishment to transfer by definition.Die for does mean Penal Substitution if the one dying is doing so to pay the death penalty that another deserves. In your illustration you have confused categories AGAIN and your illustration in no way discredits or proves as wrong penal substitution. In your illustration the man in a fire isn’t in the fire because it is his deserved penalty and the fireman who dies in the fire isn’t paying the other’s penalty.
But for proper illustration and proper category let’s say that you have committed a capital offense and the court has scheduled your execution. I intercede and gain approval from the court to take your place, die for you and pay your penalty. Everything about that is penal substitution.
In this case, who released you from the charges by paying the penalty?
Olan: Die for does mean Penal Substitution if the one dying is doing so to pay the death penalty that another deserves.
Nick: Yes, *IF* one is taking the death penalty for another, that's a big IF that has not in any way been established. What you are missing is Paul talked about "dying for" a RIGHTEOUS man, who cannot be righteous and deserve the death penalty. THUS "die for" in THIS context cannot be talking about penal sub.
Olan: In your illustration you have confused categories AGAIN and your illustration in no way discredits or proves as wrong penal substitution. In your illustration the man in a fire isn’t in the fire because it is his deserved penalty and the fireman who dies in the fire isn’t paying the other’s penalty.
Nick: My sole point was to show that "die for" need not mean Psub. The example showed a fireman who truly "died for" another, but nothing to do with Psub.
What we should really focus on is Biblical terminology, like "ransom" and "propitiation." Those are both common Scriptural terms and they both point away from Psub.
Olan said: Die for does mean Penal Substitution if the one dying is doing so to pay the death penalty that another deserves.
Nick said: Yes, *IF* one is taking the death penalty for another, that's a big IF that has not in any way been established.
Olan said: Actually that has been established and more than abundantly all through Scripture. Christ died for our sins, the just for the unjust, the godly for the ungodly, the innocent for the guilty.
Nick said: What you are missing is Paul talked about "dying for" a RIGHTEOUS man, who cannot be righteous and deserve the death penalty. THUS "die for" in THIS context cannot be talking about penal sub.Olan said: The context of Romans 5:6-8 begins in verse 6 where the apostle Paul establishes penal substitution as the context – Christ died for the ungodly – and then he moves into a comparison and contrast to show that God’s love as demonstrated in penal substitution is an out of this world kind of love because the world doesn’t love this way. So his illustration is still speaking of penal substitution. Maybe you have forgotten that it is possible for a righteous man to be wrongly accused and wrongly condemned (think Jesus). And when that happens the Bible says that one would hardly die for a righteous man. Did anyone offer to die for Christ to release Him from the law’s penalty? No, not even one of His disciples! A righteous man deserves to be rescued from an unjust condemnation by an unjust judicial system. Even then one will hardly die for a righteous man. But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).
Olan said: In your illustration you have confused categories AGAIN and your illustration in no way discredits or proves as wrong penal substitution. In your illustration the man in a fire isn’t in the fire because it is his deserved penalty and the fireman who dies in the fire isn’t paying the other’s penalty.
Nick said: My sole point was to show that "die for" need not mean Psub. The example showed a fireman who truly "died for" another, but nothing to do with Psub.Olan said: Yes, but you are supposed to be disproving penal substitution and giving an example that has nothing to do with penal substitution only confuses categories, is illogical and suppresses the truth. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.
Nick said: What we should really focus on is Biblical terminology, like "ransom" and "propitiation." Those are both common Scriptural terms and they both point away from Psub.Olan said: Those terms no more point away from penal substitution than your improperly categorized illustrations.
Let’s go back to my illustration: But for proper illustration and proper category let’s say that you have committed a capital offense and the court has scheduled your execution. I intercede and gain approval from the court to take your place, die for you and pay your penalty. Everything about that is penal substitution.
In this case, who released you from the charges by paying the penalty?If you’ll honestly answer this question I will show you the Biblical definitions of “ransom”, “propitiation”, “pardon”, “grace”, “mercy”, and “love.”
Post a Comment