Penal Substitution

[infide]

It's not about 'rules and regulations'. It's about God's holy Law which flows from His Nature.

The issue I am having is with what forgiveness is. Even if what you are saying is true (which, is pretty hard to substantiate if you consider the entire scope of the Torah - but anyway...) it is not a function of forgiveness to simply no longer believe that you were wronged in the first place. It is a belief that you were wronged, but have chosen not to allow the wrong to separate the person from you.

I see no logical or moral problem with forgiveness on God's part - even if there is a moral set of laws. The Law proves God was wronged, but who ever said God could not choose to forgive? It is an undeniable part of Jesus' view of God.

Peace,
JD

[Turgonian]

My heart is pastoral. Without a praxis, what's the point of theology? I'm in this game because I want to change people's lives.

I've been in that situation of failure for years in the past. That's why I'm now here, because my failure needed answers. Briefly, I'd tell him that his flesh had been crucified with Christ and that he should count that a reality and keep pressing forward, unwilling to compromise with sin anylonger. It is possible to overcome habitual sin if you're ruthless against it and count on what you now are in Christ. It really works.

Thank you.

So yes our righteousness is through the cross and the power it provides us, but that power is only available to us through our being unified with Christ in baptism and ultimately in Spirit, through the Spirit. There is no imputation or anything of the sort here. We are what we are, and what we are is new. Interested in your thoughts.

What I wanted to emphasize was indeed this spiritual union -- through which flows the strength which Christ gives us as a result of the Cross. Which makes Him more than a moral teacher: His supreme act of redemption is not an example we can imitate by our natural powers, but by His grace still at work in us.

Then you don't believe the Gospel which says, 'The death He died, He died for ALL.' That is: dying as a sinful man IN EVERY MAN'S PLACE.

That is not a biblical text. I googled the exact phrase and found nothing. I sought the phrase 'He died for all' on BibleGateway; perhaps to are referring to II Corinthians 5:14-15. 'For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.'

'For all' is (h)[greek]uper pantwn[/greek]. It can mean both 'instead of' and 'for the sake of'. (Strong)

[RanRan]

I see no logical or moral problem with forgiveness on God's part - even if there is a moral set of laws. The Law proves God was wronged, but who ever said God could not choose to forgive?
Peace,
JD

Obviously, He chose to forgive by sending His Only Son.

Either God forgives out of capriciousness or man is forgiveable because he merits it.
In the first case, His Justice suffers. In the second case, His Grace suffers.

The third and correct option is that God forgives because of the Cross - where neither His Justice nor His Grace are in question.

[infide]

Obviously, He chose to forgive by sending His Only Son.

Either God forgives out of capriciousness or man is forgiveable because he merits it.
In the first case, His Justice suffers. In the second case, His Grace suffers.

False dichotomy. God could forgive simply because of God's goodness and Love and desire to be reconciled with God's creation. Gods justice does not suffer in this case, because justice is defined as a reconciliation between the wronging person and the wronged. Grace does not suffer because this act of pure Love just is divine favor.

The third and correct option is that God forgives because of the Cross - where neither His Justice nor His Grace are in question.

Again, I would like to question this assumption. How does the cross exhibit God's justice? Even if it is a vicarious sacrifice, it is still an innocent person (Christ) dying on behalf of the guilty (sinful humanity). According to Ezekiel 18, this is unjust and immoral. According to Acts 8:33, justice was denied to Christ (thanks Tercel).

In terms of Grace, i have no doubts that such a vicarious substitute could be a kind of grace. Indeed it is. However, if we are being critical, we may want to ask how exactly God's Grace did not suffer in terms of how God dealt with His own Son. Clearly, God did not show Christ Mercy and Grace for the sin that was "placed on Him" if such a thing is possible. Is there any reason why God would not?

Peace,
JD

[RanRan]

False dichotomy. God could forgive simply because of God's goodness and Love
Peace,
JD

I think the Cross screams against such simplicity - Not that God isn't good and loving, but because of the way it makes the Cross superfluous and even unnecessary - rather, the Cross fits all of God, including His Justice.

[Whipartist]

Thank you.

What I wanted to emphasize was indeed this spiritual union -- through which flows the strength which Christ gives us as a result of the Cross. Which makes Him more than a moral teacher: His supreme act of redemption is not an example we can imitate by our natural powers, but by His grace still at work in us.

I basically agree with that, but a lot of details could be filled in by digging into what all that means and how it works.

You wrote to RanRan in response for me:

:That is not a biblical text. I googled the exact phrase and found nothing. I sought the phrase 'He died for all' on BibleGateway; perhaps to are referring to II Corinthians 5:14-15. 'For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.'

'For all' is (h)[greek]uper pantwn[/greek]. It can mean both 'instead of' and 'for the sake of'. (Strong)

Indeed, I also saw the reference and was puzzled by it. I found Romans 6:10 where Christ is said to actually have died to sin once for all. That verse supports my own view that Christ's death was a final stand against sin which gave Him victory over it, and thus to all who participate in His death.

And in 2Cor. 5, the reference to all is limited to the all who are being spoken about. Namely saints, who live not for themselves but for Him who rose and died again on their behalf. Another passage which directly teaches my gospel. That Christ's death was with the purpose of causing others to participate in His death so that they too might live lives free of sin and enslaved to God.

Thanks for the support Turgonian.

[infide]

I think the Cross screams against such simplicity - Not that God isn't good and loving, but because of the way it makes the Cross superfluous and even unnecessary - rather, the Cross fits all of God, including His Justice.

eh?

so your argument that God could not forgive without the cross is that if God forgave without the cross then the cross is superfluous?

Sounds like you are assuming your conclusion.

Plus its a false dichotomy - the cross could have meaning, even if the meaning does not happen to be Penal Substitution.

Peace,
JD

[RanRan]

And in 2Cor. 5, the reference to all is limited to the all who are being spoken about. Namely saints...

No, all is all. there is no limitation in the text. Christ died for all and all are resurrected. You are imposing your gospel on The Gospel.

[RanRan]

Sounds like you are assuming your conclusion.
Peace,
JD

No, I am assuming that the Gospel's conclusion that 'Christ was a ransom for all.'

Do you believe that? If not, can you be said to be 'preaching the Gospel?'

[Whipartist]

No, all is all. there is no limitation in the text. Christ died for all and all are resurrected. You are imposing your gospel on The Gospel.

I don't think that's what the text means since it's speaking of those who are in Christ and therefore New Creations. But let's sayf Paul was speaking universally. If he was, then He was endorsing recapitulation. All are resurrected, but that doesn't guarantee that all are resurrected to life. Some are resurrected to judgment as the surrounding context clearly indicates. Either way you slice it works ok, and neither ends up supporting PS or universalism.

[infide]

No, I am assuming that the Gospel's conclusion that 'Christ was a ransom for all.'

yeah, and a ransom is not the same thing as a penal substitutionary atonement, necessarily.

Do you believe that? If not, can you be said to be 'preaching the Gospel?'

Yes and yes.

The Gospel is not the same thing as penal substitution - otherwise the majority of Christians, historically speaking, were not preaching the gospel. Are you really condemning them along with me?

To be honest, you are tiring me with your condemnations, your naive view of Christianity and with your lack of good arguments. All of the above are truly against the spirit of Universalism, and give Universalism as I know it a bad name when you try to defend it. please stop.

peace,
jd

[RanRan]

To be honest, you are tiring me with your condemnations, your naive view of Christianity and with your lack of good arguments. All of the above are truly against the spirit of Universalism, and give Universalism as I know it a bad name when you try to defend it. please stop.
peace,
jd

I haven't condemned you - you're applying your own measure of judgment on that score. You spoke earlier that 'the cross could have meaning' but in terms of atonement you haven't stated (at least, clearly) what that 'meaning' might be.

[infide]

I haven't condemned you - you're applying your own measure of judgment on that score. You spoke earlier that 'the cross could have meaning' but in terms of atonement you haven't stated (at least, clearly) what that 'meaning' might be.

You havent condemned me - but you have others.

The cross has meaning because it represents the violence with which man has come against man and against God. God in Jesus teaches that the way to overcome such violence is not with retaliation or violence, but with pure divine Love - and God proved that God rejects man's rejection of God through the resurrection of Jesus.

In other words, the passion of Jesus literally demonstrates that the teachings of Jesus are true - that God's Love and Mercy can conquer death.

this is not exhaustive.

Peace,
JD

[RanRan]

You havent condemned me - but you have others.

The cross has meaning because it represents the violence with which man has come against man and against God.
Peace,
JD

That seems like a very weak explanation compared to Penal Substitution. It's entirely subjective and makes Christ a mere victim. But He wasn't a victim - He was the Lamb of God and accomplished an objective (real) redemption. He was the Lamb provided by God.

You have a very low view of the Cross - no one in the early church shared such a view. I can't find such thinking in any of the fathers. Where did you come up with it?

Edited to add text of back-to-back post in reply to the same quoted post

By the way, I have no doubt that you love Christ, just as I do. Our questions about the atonement have to do with what to teach, which is the concern of theology for the catholic (universal) faith.

Moderated By: Crow

Please do not post back to back in response to the same post. Edit your previous reply, and ask a mod for assist if the 45 minute window for editing has passed.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[infide]

That seems like a very weak explanation compared to Penal Substitution. It's entirely subjective and makes Christ a mere victim. But He wasn't a victim - He was the Lamb of God and accomplished an objective (real) redemption. He was the Lamb provided by God.

Let me just point out first of all, that now your criticism is not "under your view the cross has no meaning", but that it doesnt have meaning that you like.

In terms of subjectivity - I dont see how it is any more subjective or less objective than your view. If someone follows the teachings of Jesus, then the world changes, objectively, into the realm of God.

But if penal substitution is the only valid understanding of the cross, then nothing really objectively changes... just God's mind about the person.

As far as Christ being a victim - thats true as far as it goes. He was killed after all. But in principled nonviolence, the ultimate sacrifice of giving up one's life can in no way classify them as strictly a victim. Such non-violent action is, under this view, in no way passively becoming the victim to some oppressive power. It is, in a very concrete way, a conversion of the oppressor's "evil" energy into divine goodness. This connects the death of Jesus to the teaching of Jesus - something that Penal Substitution seems not to do very clearly. "Turn the other cheek", "walk the second mile" and ... "take up your cross".

You have a very low view of the Cross - no one in the early church shared such a view. I can't find such thinking in any of the fathers. Where did you come up with it?

Its a Principled Nonviolence retelling of Christus Victor, which was certainly not underrepresented in the early Church.

By the way, I have no doubt that you love Christ, just as I do. Our questions about the atonement have to do with what to teach, which is the concern of theology for the catholic (universal) faith.

Agreed. Just try to have some respect for people here. I am big on that when it comes to online things - because the reality is that because we cant literally see faces, there is a tendency to dehumanize people (the same effect happens driving a car... hence, road rage) - which is completely unacceptable to me.

Peace,
JD