Roofus, What do you think Isaiah means? I offer my interpretation in context on pages 13,14 of the Bible overview in my section. Does God Himself literally strike and afflict the servant, or does He allow men to do that in a way that accomplishes his plan? In short, it seems the tension is that the servant’s kind of death is God’s “will” (perhaps a better translation than ‘pleased’), while 53:4 makes it clear that they wrongly “considered” him “as stricken by God,” since it clearly happens as a result of men’s oppressive choices which God condemns (8a). It seems to me this is the classic puzzle of how to reconcile God’s ‘sovereign’ accomplishment of his plan (Calvinism) with indications that people are free to make choices that are evil and against God (Arminianism). My bias in trying to reconcile the two themes is to say that God crushes the servant in that He allows evil acts (like crushing the servant) that He then uses to bring good out of evil. Thus what literally pleases God is the way the servant willingly lays down his life and forgivingly returns good for evil, but not in itself the infliction of punishment on the innocent. Do you disagree?
Auggy,
It’s true I probably am not understanding some of your line of thought. I do agree PS folk’s concept of mercy can be seen as an incentive to a repentant life (i.e. out of gratitude for erasing sin’s penalty). And yes, the tension is raised between assurance of a past transaction that assures a justifying forgiveness, and salvation as yet future. Indeed my emphasis on this still future verdict of salvation is what reinforces a motive to “perservere” in a holy life. As you say, if PS’ focus is “they’re already saved, what is the need to persevere?” Is the ongoing need affirmed in the sense that they could ‘lose’ salvation?
In saying, PS could "wipe sins clean-thus they produce fruits of the Spirit (righteous acts), what time period and dynamic are you describing as an assumption of PS?? I’ve never heard it define wiping sin clean as producing righteous acts.
Under A, you imply “accepting the repentant obedient as clean” hangs on the proper sacrifices or “grounds” for this. But all I see is mercy toward the repentant as a sufficent basis of treating them as clean. Why is sacrifice necessary?
On B, I repeat that I see a “perfection requirement” as a Greek idea, not Biblical; none are perfect. So yes, all approaches must provide a way to mercy. And yes, PS looks to a “belief that God has provided a judicial means of pardon, and so we call on his name” (which I agree could be a form of repentance). But I perceive that this tends to emphasize a one-time past decision of belief in a past transaction (though it may sometimes lead to gratefully persevering in a repentant life). My impression is that it usually leads to taking for granted a state of acceptable paralysis in unrepentance, so that better views should emphasize that mercy lies less in a past transaction or response to it, and more in the ongoing journey of discipleship that looks to the innately merciful character of God, as that was exhibited in Jesus and at the cross and resurrection.
I’ll have to take some time to ponder it, thanks for your reply!
So would you agree that I’ve provided one way that PS can endorse repentance?
Also it seems both sides can polarize too far. In a non-reformed view, one losing his salvation seems weak; like that of a yo-yo coming in and out of salvation upon every sin commited. Or if that line of reason is taken further, then none of us are saved at all and the kingdom of God is not even present (because it’s coming); there is no assurance of our being saved.
I would think that it’s within PS’s parameters to say that when one’s sins are wiped clean (born again) a tranformation is occuring which is both complete by the Cross and will be completed in due time (when they literally see him face to face). This tranformation includes the good works people were created to do (not to “get” saved, but to glorify God).
That seems to be the OT imagery. If they did the sacrifice God would forgive them of their sins. That imagery being the Christ. No doubt it’s not exactly clear how it works, but PS seems to me to have some grounds for their line of thought. I’m not saying this is right for surely the atonement can be seen in many ways. But I would not rule it out (at least not yet).
Here is a point of contention I have regarding how people attack “belief”. When John 3:16 says “whosoever believes in him shall not perish”, I find it hard to believe it’s wrong. I’ll illustrate using our very own Jason Pratt.
Suppose that exactly at the young age of 19 Jason realized his need for God and saw Jesus as the revelation of God’s character. And suppose that on his 19th birthday he came to believe in Jesus. And suppose that Jason lived a faithful life tranformed by the Spirit of God. Would it not be correct to say that the reason he was saved was because he believed? For if one does not believe then he will not follow. I don’t believe in Joseph’s Smith’s message: Therfore I do not follow the Mormon religion. So when people say “the sinners prayer” - if it’s sincere then isn’t that the 19th birthday for that person? And isn’t it that belief which will save him?
So what’s the alternative to the one time “I got saved” approach? I keep getting saved? I’ve been born again 30 different times. Simply because people do succomb to false thinking as you clearly state, I don’t know of many Christians who would say that one can be a Christian and be a practicing homosexual. I’m going to conduct this survey and if what you say is true, then I suppose they’ll affirm it’s possible.
My point is this: Penal substitution may not be (though maybe it is) the culprit in why peoeple believe they can hate their neighbor and still be saved. I would imagine many people who don’t believe in PS still can hate their neighbor and believe that they themselves are quite righteous. It seems to me there’s more to our living in sin and thinking highly of ourselves then this. I think it comes down to how much we believe we love God when really we dont.
Auggy, I appreciate your perservance it seeking to sort it out!
I agree PS can ‘endorse’ repentance, and that a “yo-yo salvation” is one bad extreme. But so is thinking nothing crucial could be lost by our rebellion. We agree “It’s not clear” how Christ’s sacrifice works, but I guess my experience is that PS tends to act as if it possesses a definitive (but I think wrong) paradigm that defines how it works.
I agree “belief” is pivotal, but think the “alternative” to the “believed one time and got saved approach” is seeing the need as an ongoing present tense faith that can’t be separated from the need for obedience. You suggest that PS may not be connected to thinking the saved can keep hating. But I’ve often heard just that sort of view voiced in the same breath as references to the dominant PS paradigm in order to justify such a confidence. If it thus functions to minimize our belief in the essential need for obedience, I can’t help but think it must tend to hinder grappling with pursuing that need.
OK, At this point I need to make some sobering remarks. It didn’t take long for me to get hold of a real sample similar to what Bob raises. On facebook, a particular individual expressed that it’s ok for Christians not to love their neighbor because getting saved was not about our works but about believing what Jesus did on the cross (Penal Substitution).
So while I would maintain that there is probably a better way to view PS. It certainly would not be the way that most traditionalists view it. I recall my wife telling me about Greg Boyd and a discussion he had with a gentlemen regarding Barth’s view on penal susbstitution. I don’t know what Barth’s view was but she told me that Boyd had expressed that if Barth was correct then he could count him in. I feel this my be the road I’m no. That is PS could be misunderstood and morso it might only be part of the elephant.
I’m now going to go through point by point to see if I can make sense of what it is about PS that motivates me and what it is that gives me doubt.
Aug
First of all thank you so much for your encouraging welcome (yr topic with the 3 questions!)- it is a real blessing for me as is your critique of Penal Substitution…
I confess I have only just skimmed thru it late this evening but enough for me know I shall be use it as an excellent companion to Derek Floods Penal Substitution vs Christus Victus not yet published I believe but can be found on the Internet and downloaded. I have been reading and praying over more tha a year, recommended to me by my parish priest at St Georges, Barcelona. It is a combination of Derek Flood’s book, finding it’'s never too late to read and study the Bible (Bible studies at St George’s), encouragement by our St George’s priest Andrew Tweedy, and many friends, that I came to understand deep in my heart God’s love for all humanity.
I now know in my heart why my brother is such a wonderful person altho he gave up believing in God many years ago. God loves him as He loves everyone, and surely it follows that it is that love that is the driving force in all good people whatever their race, creed , beliefs or absence of belief, and in the end will bring about Universal Reconciliation.
Hi Bob,
Andrew, our Barcelona parish priest at St George`s printed out and gave me a copy of your paper which I have now re-read together with the many replies. I am very much on a learning curve and will be reading more than commenting. I am finding it a real blessing to be here in this Forum.
Having said that I do have a comment!
There can hardly be any greater sin than the denial of Christ and greater examples of God’s forgivenes and love towards the sinner than the meeting between Peter and the resurrected Christ, when, instead of chiding or being wrathful, Christ asks Peter three times “Do you love me?” and, in answer to Peter’s affirmation of his love to Jesus, comes the call “Feed my sheep”. And one could go on with so many examples, as you yrself give that of the father and the prodigal son. And Saul the persecutor becomes Paul co-leader with Peter!!
Also I have to thank Andrew for pointing me to Psalm 103 - fully supporting God’s love and mercy for all humanity.
With a cheer and a prayer!
Michael
Well, I certainly don’t think it means that the Lord really enjoyed seeing His beloved Son suffer in an Edwardian sense.
Possibly it simply means that Yahweh was willing to allow Jesus’s death for the sake of fallen humanity whom He also loved and wished to reconcile to Himself.
I suspect a look at the original language and context there would shed some light on it.
This attachment about the PS was awesome. I’ve rarely read a refutation of it offered so logically and convincingly. thank you!
Also I think the main point (as I see it) turns on whether God uses Christ to receive well deserved punishment or whether Christ’s participation – albeit only as a victim, not as a perpetrator – of our sin/cruelty is crucial. Moltmann was very useful for me here. When he wrote in The Crucified God that Jesus became “brother of the damned” he articulated something I had already intuitively felt. It was by sharing the consequences of our sin, being in the same place we get to when we’ve sinned – that we are ABLE to know we’re loved anyway and thus ABLE to trust him and thus ABLE to turn our lives around. As was pointed out, WE needed that assurance, that reassurance that even in our worst – he was there. It is like God joined an AA group if you like, experiencing the full affects of life-long alcoholism or addiction – and sharing the pain of withdrawal and recovery – although he never took a drink. Seeing him at that meeting, we can know a) he understands and b) we’re not condemned and c) just how much we matter to him! Moreover, as hard as the route is out of hell, we’re never alone. Otherwise despair is way too tempting! We fail so often and even, more horribly, want to fail – that without him always being where we are we’d give up on ourselves in a heartbeat. The ressurection suggests that his love is more powerful than our despair and even though all we do (as Julian of Norwich wrote) is sin, so long as we keep letting him pick us up and repent and keep going we’re going to get there because nothing can separate us from the love of God that is ours through Jesus Christ. Thus my sin just doesn’t have the stamina – endurance, however willed or entrenched, once I fully trust the One’s whose love is always stronger. My sin can’t compete with his Love – and i think that is what the PS misses and what this wonderful critique of it affirms. Exactly, salvation is from sin, not from punishment. That is a critical distinction – and if we are saved from punishment, then must keep on avoiding sin. But i think the point is here that it is not God that punishes us – which again, the PS strongly suggests (if not outright states). It is an ontological point really – sin is its own punishment. It is an act or state or thought or way of being which is against Life/Love and therefore will inevitably and eventually (because the consequences may very well not be immediate) hurt, maim, kill us. Sin hurts us more in a way than the one we sin against. It is like sin is a virus or infection that unless treated, will make us sick – it is not that God ‘does the sickness to us’ any more than if we throw ourselves off a cliff God makes the ground attack us. Punishment may simply be not preventing the outcome of our actions. In the ‘off the cliff’ analogy we may think someone is not suffering for what s/he’s done because they haven’t hit the ground yet. The flight down may even be enjoyable! Our vision of a person’s entire life is truncated. We see only parts of lives and even of our life. If we are indeed immortal beings – then ‘inevitable’ acquires whole new resonance. But trust in Christ makes it possible both to see that we are sitting in sin (because we’re loved and accompanied anyway) and get out of it (because Christ knows away out of hell, a way past the cross and he gave us proof of life beyond the suffering of ‘getting better’ – new life, resurrected life, abundant life. In short, he gives understanding, forgiveness and hope.
Whatever – gone on here – sorry! Just loved this explanation. Thank you again Bob for such a well thought through rebuttal to a doctrine that I believe misrepresents both God and Christ! How could God be other than Christ when Christ said, ‘when you see me you see the father’ and at the same time, also said, ‘when you do it for the least of these, you do it for me’. Yahweh, or the I AM, that Christ also claims to be – is with ‘the least of these’ – not just Jesus, the individual. That is one of the most damning (sorry) elements for me in the PS – it seems to separate God and Christ.
xoSasha
Sasha
Bob, can you make that attachment about PST available on the web? I’d like to share it with some friends.
Sasha, thanks, it’s always nice to know kindred spirits who see it similarly.
Brad, you’re welcome to put a link to the attachment on the EU site. I’m unfamiliar with how to put in on the “web.”
Bob, I tried posting the URL for that PDF file on Facebook but it didn’t work. I think people have to log in to this forum before they can view it.
But are you still happy with it after having it critiqued here?
If you are and you gave me permission to post it on the following site jesus-wept.net I’d do it.
But before giving me permission make sure you have a good look my at site because I have not shied away from some very controversial subjects and you might not want your name and article posted there.
I will not be offended if you say no, but will be looking forward to it being posted somewhere on the web.
Perhaps Cindy would post it on her site?
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=543
Not quite sure where she stands on the issue though.
She seems to be more sane than I am.
I’m sorry I’m illiterate about URLs. Please feel free to reproduce it any way you know how. The PS piece continues to be representative of my outlook, and I’m too old to worry about anyone who has a different view. Being posted on your site needn’t imply that we necessarily share the same outlook on everything, but I’m fine if someone assumed that. I see the two pages as outlining unavoidable difficulties with PS, more than specifying the alternative, which I’m still seeking to refine. That’s one reason I’m still comfortable with it.
Thanks Bob. I still might ask Cindy if she will do it though. Some people are quite hostile to what I’ve written on that site, and I’d hate to see such a great little article be maligned because of me.
I need to review this material again, as I recently read a book endorsing universalism using biblical logic that hangs heavily on a penal sub model. I have a few questions for them about various points of their view, and I’ll need some intelligent questions to ask about this component in particular.
Greetings 
I will need to do a lot of review myself –
I am curious though how PS or the other alternatives put forth here...
deal with the humanity of Jesus ... The reason I ask this is because I seem to notice
an overabundance of mentioning the divinity of Jesus that might seem to minimize
or reduce the humanity of Jesus...
Was Jesus a sinner? well, I will have to find time to think this over too...
since in the near future I wish to introduce my perspective of what the meaning of sinner is ..
since at this time I do not use "sin" or "sinner" in my writings ...
Also I will really be looking forward to the review of Barth ....
Just thinking quickly and out loud to myself (to remind me )
Athanasius makes a very strong position for the complete humanity of Jesus ...
and through my own theological research I have come to a tentative position ...
that Jesus was identical to me as a human --- including my personal autonomous behavior ...
depending on how one translates sarx in John 1....
thanks for the 2 page document and the other posts ! really stimulating ...
all the best !Hothosegz,
Did you mean my P.S. paper mentioned Jesus’ divinity in “overabundance”? Can you specify which lines you have in mind? While this paper assumes the traditional view, I didn’t think it much addressed the issue of Jesus’ deity, or argued from it to question P.S. I have addressed such questions of Trinitarian views on several other threads, and take the minority view here that what crucially matters (including to universalists) is that Jesus accurately represents Jesus’ character, rather than hangs on the precise ontological nature of God.
Greetings
My meaning about the abundance of expressing the divinity of Jesus … was from my impression
of reading all of the posts in this thread… 
This is not a critique just my impression thus I asked this question ...
Also from a post in another thread -- I followed it to James Alison .. which became an unexpected
surprise -- concerning the death of Jesus ...
[girardianlectionary.net/res/jbw_ch4a_jbw.htm](http://girardianlectionary.net/res/jbw_ch4a_jbw.htm)
also another link .. sorry for the brevity of this post since I am in a hurry to go outside ...
Really appreciate this Forum very much ! For me after numerous years this Forum and the members
are Refreshing summer breeze on a hot Summer evening .. Kudos to everyone for sharing so many
Invaluable gems, diamonds and rubies...
all the best !