I read this today on another board in an argument against PST.
bibleforums.org/showthread.php/2 … bstitution
Would this be a good argument for PST?
I wouldn’t say it’s a good argument for penal sub atonement per se (nor against it either, strictly speaking), but it expresses clearly what’s at stake in holding the doctrine: Arminians who hold it are being inconsistent–they should reject it if they believe in any kind of hopeless punishment, or else become Christian universalists. Whereas Calvinists who hold it are being consistent enough to do so, since they believe in limited application of atonement and in some kind of hopeless punishment or fate for the non-elect.
(I would say anyone who holds it in the manner expressed by the author quoted, should stop being trinitarian, since it blatantly schisms the substance of the Persons. The issue really should be settled before going to what kind of soteriology results from holding it or which is at least consistent with it.)
I was thinking about this just a little bit ago. Israel’s sacrificial system is something of a take-off from middle/near-eastern practices of the time in which the sacrificial victim is seen to be dying in the place of the sacrificer. That is, the victim is a surrogate for the sacrificer, who symbolically dies with/in the victim’s death. SOMEONE has to die, because death is the only escape from bondage to this world’s system. Without the shedding of blood (the life is in the blood) there is no remission of sin. I’ll have to look up that word, ‘remission,’ but to me, ‘remission’ speaks of healing – as in, “The doctor says my cancer is in permanent remission.”
The only escape from sin is to die to it. Hence Paul’s comparison of a widow’s freedom to remarry, who could not remarry if her husband were alive because she would be bound by the law of her husband. Only in this case, it is the ‘wife’ who “dies” and is so released from the law of her husband. The sinner, in Christ’s death, dies to his/her former master; sin; and is thereby set free to serve a new master: righteousness.
PS Arminians talk about our sins being “covered.” I think the “covered” part is scriptural (I’d have to look), but they’ve got it mixed. I believe it really means COVERED, as in put six feet under – destroyed. Not “covered” as in “When the Father looks at me, He sees Jesus and He can’t see my sin.” That always sounded to me like God was just fooling Himself. I never felt quite satisfied that I was still sinful but God somehow just didn’t seem to know it. Jesus presumably knew it, He being the covering, but not the Father. Did the HS know too? I expect so as He’s the one to convict us when we miss it. Only Father, it seems, is left out of the loop here, and His is a willful ignorance. Wouldn’t it be better to fix the problem? I always kind of assumed that they were missing something. Of course God wouldn’t be satisfied with a make-believe righteousness in His children. Turns out they were missing quite a lot. I’m not sure how to connect this up, logically or intuitively or any way at all. Hidden sin doesn’t work with the overall theme of holiness.
Anyway, I think I got off track. Arms say things like the remarks “quoted” above, and they also say that Jesus’ blood has washed away our sins – which is it? Or that once our sins were as scarlet and now they’re white like snow . . . okay. That sounds like a third opinion. I like the scarlet -> snow analogy. When you bleach color out of a fabric, painting, etc., the bleach destroys the actual color molecules and the color quite literally ceases to exist. If the bleach is strong enough, the paper/cloth will then be white as snow, which is quite a lot whiter than either typically will have started out.
I think that as the life is in the blood, and Jesus identified with Adam’s race as the second Adam, the last Adam, and the head of the one new man, His gift of His life was for the purpose of entering death and thus setting us free from sin. He shed his blood (life) and came under the auspices of death – but death wasn’t strong enough for Him. Instead of death holding Him captive, He took possession of the realm of the dead (everywhere His sandal trod, as God promised Abraham), conquered and routed it and turned it inside out, from death He brought LIFE. Death isn’t so much dead as it is just NOT. There is no longer any death to BE dead. (Speaking from an already-not-yet perspective of course.) Death has BECOME LIFE! Pretty amazing.
I’m also pretty sure this doesn’t carry on the conversation 
but it was cool to see your post, Nimblewill, since I was mulling this over for the last several hours while I mowed the yard. I think my arms are sunburned . . . . 
I strongly suggest listening to Mikhail Hany’s explanation of “Divine Justice”, including the “atonement”.
Hany, a Coptic Orthodox teacher, does an excellent job. If you enjoy part one (link below) you may find yourself listening to all 12 parts!