Penal substitution is the view that because man sinned and is guilty, justice called for man to be punished, “but God so loved the world”… It makes a complete injustice seem to be of good intent. There is no good intent involved in complete injustice. And any gooshy feelings involved are devoid of good intent as well. They may be portrayed as good and even be thought of as good. But they are not. Just because someone thinks something is good does not make it good. For that is indiscernible from situational ethics which wars against absolutes. God’s standard of justice is perfect and contains nothing but absolutism. I do not care how much you love a serial killer. Hanging the librarian in his stead is just as much an injustice as it would be if you did not love the serial killer and decided to hang the wrong person for any other reason. Two wrongs do not make a right. And correspondingly two injustices do not result in justice. It is wrong to refuse to punish the actual party that justice originally demanded be punished. It furthers the wrongdoing by committing even more offenses against justice by punishing the wrong party (a completely innocent party). This is the main problem people are seeing in the false penal substitute doctrine. But as far as I have seen, none have been able to come up with a solution. The problem of how punishing an innocent party in the place of the guilty somehow winds up satisfying justice is actually a legal problem, and in fact, a legal impossibility. The real problem is that the churches, pastors and theologians have no sense of law or legal thinking whatsoever. The proof of this is revealed in their being deceived into thinking a complete injustice is not only justice, but also is the most perfect justice of God. If I were to say that the definition or epitome of a satanic false doctrine is to get believers and unbelievers in ignorance to take an unlawful view of God, one would be forced to agree. For since when is Satan an evangelist and advocate of the truth?
Heresies are not only known for using softer words and phrases in attempts at making an unprincipled doctrine seem more palatable, but rationalizations and false lines of reasoning also must be used to make an unprincipled doctrine seem principled. As usual, penal substitute defenders do not like to use harsh or blunt words. Instead, they like softer and more diplomatic sounding words, such as “imputed”. Imputed sounds softer than “punish”. Does it not? Limited atonement Calvinists use the very same tactics. Either God makes the decision for you or He does not. Either you don’t have any free volition at all, or you have nothing but free volition. Calvinists like to soften things and suggest that God “makes you willing to believe” or “He draws you into believing”. Either you make the decision freely of your own accord in complete independence or you do not. It is actually that simple. And there is nothing in between. Whether they use the words “punished”, “ransomed”, “imputed”, or “identified with”, they all are referring to the very same act of injustice. So when a person tries to make an injustice “sound better”, that is exactly what they are doing. Their mistake is that they are not starting from the basis of undeniable justice and principles of law, considering that the cross involved no punishment or wrath from the Father on the Son at all. What they need to do is begin using a principled legal basis to figure out what actually must have occurred. If you examine the Bible from the perspective that the Father did not punish the Son in our place and start reading the many passages in which God has wrath on the willfully guilty, then it all starts to make sense. It must be coupled with the Mosaic law concerning crime and punishment, to finally figure out that the punishment for taking an eye is the offender losing his. And that is literally it. No, “infinite punishment”, “unbearable wrath”, or “firey invisible element melting wrath”, but simply the punishments as laid out in the Old and New Testaments. When the idea of the Son being punished for man’s crimes is eliminated, then Caesar, being God’s servant to punish wrongdoers, means and can be taken literally for what it says. Samuel told king Saul that he failed to personally execute or carry out God’s wrath on the Amalekites. In the penal substitute view, this passage cannot be taken literally and commonsensically according to what it plainly says. Without the penal substitute view, it makes common sense and is easy to understand that even though this is mostly an unjust world because of the times we are in, God does at times and even these days use men and governments to carry out his wrath on wrongdoers. God literally ran Israel Himself. And it was His justice that was carried out in the land, through the prophets, judges, rulers and officers of the criminal courts. To pretend that there are two completely opposing systems of justice, directly contradicting each other (God’s and man’s), is insane. Even the law of Moses is man’s law. Are we supposed to have God’s sense of justice or a lower justice? For how are we to carry out the will of God if our “principles” of justice are completely contrary to His? How can we be just before Him if our justice doesn’t even remotely resemble His, but in fact wars against His. And He is the author of both? God’s command to us is quite clear. If we punish the innocent, even in ignorance, a complete injustice has been done! We are never, nor will we ever be permitted to punish the innocent, because it is illegal and a crime. It does not lessen the crime to put God in our place, portraying Him as punishing the innocent. In fact, to He who knows more, more is required. Is not God maximized in His wisdom and insight? Whether it be God, man or angel who sins, it is sin. Though God does not commit sin (and I am sure I have to add this caveat lest some of you suffer from high blood pressure), I am making the point that the illegality of illegal activity is not dependent on the species of being who performs it.
Without the penal substitute view, when one reads that the atonement offering covered sins of ignorance and inability, to which no punishment is called for, then you can take the passages according to their very words. The Passover is the overlooking, not passing over us and finding an innocent person to punish instead. Justify your beliefs legally and subject them to legal scrutiny, and ask questions such as: Does man deserve death for being created and born in a state in which he had nothing to do with, having had no choice in the matter? Let me tell you this: higher justice isn’t holding things against people that are beyond their control and things of which they are victims. I will tell you who is suffering when they are born ignorant and enslaved to a biological corrupt nature and instincts that are completely out of control, in a world full of disinformation, and it isn’t God. It is the person born in that mess. No wonder God is a God of mercy, love, aid and comfort. But people portray Him as the exact opposite. They hold themselves as authorities on the justice of God. Shame on them. For they stand condemned. If they are deceived, then God will give them a break. But if they are not deceived, the only breaks they will get are in their bones.
It does not matter how much you love a criminal offender, because justice does not throw itself in the trash and give the hangman the day off because you love a killer. Did God bear false witness when He told Israel what the punishments were under His system of justice for each particular criminal offense in the Old Testament? Was the nation of Israel (the nation that was a light unto the Gentiles about God, His justice, aid and deliverance for man), bearing false witness when they stated that the punishment for unjustified homicide was physical death? When Christ returns, will the world be run by man’s system of justice or by God’s? If you say man’s, then God’s justice isn’t brought to the world. Jesus Christ will rule with a rod of iron. But according to who’s justice, man’s or God’s? It seems that Christ uses the iron rod on the actual guilty parties. Does He not? Sodom was destroyed according to who’s wrath and whose system of justice, God or man’s? Accept Christ or reject Christ. But if you knock over a bank, commit rape or murder, expect to spend some time in prison or even suffer death if the particular capital offense you commit just happens to make the jury throw up when being informed of the details of it. So whether you lose an eye or not for having taken one, you having lost the eye is not the work of salvation. It is simply the criminal justice system dealing out the justice of God, if it does take your eye. Let no one deceive you. Just because this is an increasingly evil world where murderers are seldom put to death, and of the few who are it is decades later, all will have to face the justice of God eventually. It is because this is an evil world run by Satan that you do not see perfect justice and seldom anything resembling it, unless God intervenes. It is not because God has punished His Son. Justice has been satisfied, and therefore is the reason you do not see perfect justice occurring. Wrath, indignation and punishment await wrongdoers. And yes, I am talking about believers. So, if you want to live in the equivalent of a trailer park in outback Egypt for all eternity, never being allowed in Israel proper, let alone the city or the garden of our God, just continue to think that the loss of all rewards and acknowledgements of well doing is not a punishment.
How is a man saved but by faith? Whether he is sitting on death row, or is eight years old, having never even stolen a piece of penny candy, WHEN he has faith is actually irrelevant, now isn’t it? Which one is prevented from having faith? Death row doesn’t make you unable or less able to have faith. The circumstances, as well as whether you have committed smaller or greater criminal acts is actually irrelevant. Gee, even if you hold doctrines and views of God that Satan himself dreamed up, it is actually irrelevant when you are given the actual truth. So have faith, think on these things and look at all things through the principles of law. For God is not only righteous, but is also the epitome of lawfulness and legality. God’s justice should be easily perceivable and will not violate the very basic fundamentals of justice.
Would it be a stretch to think that Christ was put to death by men who were ignorant, and that for the purposes of the demonstration of His righteousness, again, for the demonstration of His righteousness? Was not the testing of Job for the demonstration of his righteousness? Was not the death of Stephen for the demonstration of his righteousness, of which Jesus Christ was the pioneer? What do you think the testing of Ester was for, or Daniel in the lion’s den, or of all the others who were tested and recorded in the Bible? Who is the accuser of the brethren? And you thought he had no accusations to make against Christ! Well, those accusations were proven to be false. And by that came the condemnation of Satan. On that basis, Satan’s rebellion was proven to be unjustified by once again,… legal evidence. Those believers were tested for the demonstration of their righteousness. Or was it the righteousness that comes by faith, even of the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ being exhibited and witness to by them? There is only one righteousness. And it comes from only one place or person. Did you not know that? Whose righteousness are we to be witnesses and examples of? It certainly is not our own, because someone else originated it, owns the copyright and demands attribution lest we bear false witness.
Wow…..explosive…I think I am getting it now….absolutely must read more. Thanks a bunch for posting.
Tim, you started out well, but then wandered off into other pet peaves which detract from the point you made, that penal substitution as typically stated involves gross
injustice. I have long complained about theologians and Christians not thinking through the implications of what they say. For example, justification is defined in the Westminster
Confession of Faith, a standard for many Calvinists, as a pardon. Then Dabney, who professed to hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, writes a book defending
Penal Substitution. Well, justification by pardon is _not_ justification through penal substitution at all. Pardon is a relaxation of the penal requirements of law on some other grounds than the law. But penal substitution is supposed to meet the requirements of law. So it appears that justification is not accomplished by meeting the requirements of the law, which the very word indicates, that God is just by keeping the law when justifying.
Well, what is made of penal substitution when it is done the way Dabney (along
with Hodge, et al) does it is simply wrong. Justification takes place because the sins of those who believe don’t stick and they are judged innocent and not guilty, not because they are “forgiven” or pardoned! And the reason that they are judged innocent is because when God judges believers He does not see their sins (they are _covered_ and so hidden). As far as the legal evidence is concerned they aren’t there and there is nothing to judge. Their is no basis even for a trial. How can that be? It is because of the atonement of Christ. Now you could quibble and say it was not “penal satisfaction.” But you would have to come up with some other term that amounts to just about the same thing. The truth is that it can’t be quilt (wrongdoing what is properly judged) that is transferred, but “sin,” so that God is _absolutely just_ in judging a person not quilty.
Bob Jaffray
Mr. Jaffary, as I am a patient, contemplative man and like to address a persons testimony directly without bearing false witness as to what it is, I would kindly thank you for giving your own arguments and reasoning’s without including Dabney, Westmintser, and the Mormon tabernacle choir. It is a little difficult to separate those you quote and their arguments as described by you…where those leave off and where your arguments begin. I do not wish to act presumptively and assign an argument to you what might be your rendition of someone elses, like Dabney. If you could give your own arguments and logical line of reasoning then I will respond in kind, thanks in advance. I suggest you deal directly with my arguments and respond to them, as well as give your very own arguments.
i.e. Well, justification by pardon is _not_ justification through penal substitution at all. Pardon is a relaxation of the penal requirements of law on some other grounds than the law. But penal substitution is supposed to meet the requirements of law. So it appears that justification is not accomplished by meeting the requirements of the law, which the very word indicates, that God is just by keeping the law when justifying. (is this your argument or Dabney’s)
(This is being posted in Bob Jaffary’s behalf due to Mr. Jaffary using the site contact email instead of having responded in the actual post’s comments section.)
A note for Mr. Jaffary: Your first post post has not been deleted by you or by the website admins. simply click “blog” on the website’s main page. The recent comments are listed on the right and by clicking on them it will take you to the comments section for “the false penal substitution…” article. I suggest that you reread it if need be.
Message Body:
Thank you Tim for your post asking if what I said was for myself
or the view of Dabney.
Unfortunately I inadvertantly deleted it so I don’t have the exact
words.
Of course, Dabney was a Presbyterian who subscribed to the
Westminster Confession of Faith which asserts that justification
is a pardon. That is wrong. It is wrong because the definition of
pardon is a relaxation of the law, which is the opposite of carring
it out. Dabney’s incorrect view is in Christ’s sacrifice guilt was
transferred from sinners to Him, which is the supposed basis
for pardon. That is impossible. Once guilt is assigned by a
legal judgment it is not transferrable. Critics historically have
been quite correct to point out that only noncriminal debts can
be transferred, not debts due to crimes. If you go back to the
Reformed theologians they all (with the exception of John Owen)
refer to the relaxation of the law. So the idea that the guilt for
our sins was transferred to Christ on the Cross to die as our
substitute has to be wrong.
But the governmentallist critics are also wrong. They throw
out a principled legal standard grounds for atonement altogether
and put in place of it a mere governmental display on God’s
part to maintain his absolute opposition to sin. When God
justifies one who believes it is not a fake justification in which
there is no inherent penalty that has been dealt with but it is
only a moral restraint.
But when God justifies one who believes it is not like the
Reformed including R. L. Dabney that there was what would
have to be a miscarriage of justice by an overriding decision
on some higher power that is above the law (a pardon).
Rather justification has to be an acquital on the part of
God, a decision that the believer is not guilty. And the
atonement has to provide for the decision.
Now my question to you is how Christ’s atonement makes
a provision for that decision on the basis of a prinicipled legal
standard.
Bob Jaffray
This e-mail was sent from a contact form on (http://principledlegalstandard.org)
Mr. Jaffary, once again it seems that all you talk about is Dabney or the reformers. I asked you for your own view. You in your comment were clearly implying that your were an authority on the subject, and apparently you hold yourself as more of an authority than the reformers. To add to that, you also present yourself as an authority above me…and what I take as you implying that I do not “think through the implications of what I say”(write in this case).
Mr. Jaffary I have yet for you to simply declare what your views are, since either you do not want to reveal them, or you are purposely intermingling them among your Dabney and reformers fettish…to make them almost indiscernible.
Now it is you who said that I am off track or whatever and hold yourself as an authority and I obviously not being one. You say you got the answers, give em or keep quiet. (once again, I am not asking for your views on the reformers or your critique of them, I am asking you for your own unadulterated view, if you cannot or will not give your clear and concise personal views then do not bother to respond or pretend that you have responded to my request). ( I have removed a previous comment of mine due to confusion as to what Mr. Jaffary’s views actually are)
Here is what I have decided to do. I have decided to respond and give answer to what is clearly Mr. Jaffary’s viewpoint. which is this:
“Rather justification has to be an acquital on the part of
God, a decision that the believer is not guilty. And the
atonement has to provide for the decision.
Now my question to you is how Christ’s atonement makes
a provision for that decision on the basis of a prinicipled legal
standard.”
First and foremost guilt remains and it remains forever and is never removed, though the sinful state will not in the case of the believer. “I am guilty of past crimes”(is a lawful and true statement). However, “I was guilty of stealing a car but no longer am”(is an unlawful statement and an untrue one). The mistake that is made by you Bob and others is thinking that Christs atonement makes one who was guilty of past crimes…to become not guilty of past crimes. Christ’s atonement did not make up for the sins of others, or satisfy justice in the case of the crimes of others…whether it be in terms of punishment, sin, or guilt. The declaration of “justified” which occurs at the point one has faith in Christ, is a true declaration about that person and their state and attitude…AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. It is not a declaration that they were “not guilty” of the crimes they committed in the past…it is not making a verdict or declaration about their past state and sins at all. There is nothing that can be legally held against a person having faith in Christ for deliverance!…even while they are undelivered! Slavery is not held against the slave. And even considering willful crimes that the believer has done in the past, and is still guilty of having committed…though he is no longer committing them…a past state is irrelevant to one’s present state, just as a past attitude of willful sin is irrelevant to a present attitude of preferring righteousness today! There is nothing that a person at the time and point of having faith in Christ for salvation which calls for them to be hauled into criminal court. The sin nature is not the man and whatever is causing the problem is what the law takes aim at. “for i do what i do not want to do”…is no reason to be angry at the man or to blame him for the problem of the unlawful state. So the false basis that the atonement removes guilt and the declaration of not guilty is “provided for by the atonement” is part of the problem….which I might add is the very thing that happens when “christians and theologians” do not think through as to the ramifications of what they say and write.
The past cannot be changed and the atonement is not for the purposes of magically changing the past…the atonement does not make a car “unstolen”, that was stolen. Nor does the atonement make a car thief in the past…not a car thief in the past. So just as it is impossible to “unsteal” a car, it is to the same measure impossible to make the same man “unguilty” of havin stolen a car. Therefore, according to the irrefutable legal standard of law, laws of science, history and reality itself…the declaration of “justified” or “not guilty”, is not with respect to the crimes done in the past before salvation, or the future crimes done after salvation. It is with respect to the man’s state and attitude at the very time that he believes…there is nothing that a man is guilty of…or can be found to be a crime, in the act of believing the gospel and desiring the righteousness that is of God. They are justified in what they are doing! And the court has nothing against them. God deals with men in time and He deals with crimes at the time they are committed and not before. Notice how God deals with believers in time in the present tense, and that God does not discipline us before we commit wrongdoing? Well, I was not declared “not guilty” in AD33. The justification is “in Christ”, not in AD33. That’s why we are not born “not guilty”. To state clearly that the atonement provides for the “not guilty” verdict concerning man’s sins, in the past present and future is ridiculous. It makes it not having to do with the man’s state or attitude at the time that he has faith…for it is when man has faith that he is declared to be justified…in doing so!
So what was the cross of Christ about? It certainly was not about revisionist history concerning our sins and guilt. It is impossible to rebel against God without calling God a liar. YOU WANT A PRINCIPLED LEGAL STANDARD? I WILL GIVE YOU ONE. When two intelligent parties disagree in court, each one is calling the other a liar…and Satan and God disagreed alright. Also it is the principled legal standard that the words of both opposing parties cannot decide the case. Statements and testimony given without evidence is not evidence and certainly a verdict is not reached without evidence. In fact the evidence decided the case. That is another point of law in the principled legal standard. The evidence decides the case. So Satan and God had contradictory testimonies, and each was calling the other a liar…for God said “this is the truth of the matter”…and Satan said “no, this is the truth of the matter”. So, God being accused of being a liar, is also accused of covering up the truth, is also accused of being unjust, is also accused of accusing Satan of what God is supposedly guilty of, is also accused of lying about Satan to cover up God’s own supposed corruption. This is the legal issues that were raised and were pending during the rebellion and in force at the time of Adam’s creation and leading up to and being settled and answered by the cross. Jesus Christ was tested just like Job, Daniel, Esther, and all the others…yet no deceit or lies were found in His mouth. He came to testify that “God is truthful”(that God is true is a crappy translation). So the cross was for the demonstration of His righteousness, I say again for the demonstration of His righteousness. Let God be found truthful and all men liars, and Satan too for he is the originator or author of all lies. So, if a man commits a sin where punishment is called for, he is simply punished…so what? If he has not, then there is no call for punishment. God certainly can forgo punishment, under the principle of beneficiality. (pardon). Why? First of all a pardon is not above the law and based on something other than the law. A pardon is based on law and is part of law. It is this simple, only repentant criminals qualify for consideration in the first place. This is why only an idiot would pardon someone like Ted Bundy. You give your children a pardon every time they do wrong and you perceive that they have learned their lesson…and because they have, that is the basis in law(their attitude and position)…that you forgo discipline. Seeing that a child has learned their lesson is the very reason that one decides to pardon them. Or do you live in life like you believe God does, Bob? If you see your child do wrong and he is sorry for it because of whatever reasons(perhaps it is because he sees the harm he has done, or the damages that he has caused), do you whip him anyway Bob?(because punishment must always be done even if they learned their lesson!). Hey Bob do you declare yourself as being “not guilty” of any past crimes because you put faith in Christ? I sure don’t, cause I am not a liar about my past, and God sure doesn’t either. This is why the declaration of “justified” or “not guilty” which occurs at the time of faith in Christ, is only with respect to that persons state and their choice, and attitude…at that time, and is only speaking about that alone. See what happens when theologians and christians say things and do not think through the ramifications of what they say? If they speak falsely they make God out to be a liar. For God says “it is this way”, what say you Bob?
p.s. there is no place in the bible that says that at faith in christ that a man is justified of his past or future sins. And the scape goat removes the sins of the people after the sacrifice is made and that through the life of the scape goat, which is not recorded that it ends….much like the days of Melchizedek and his lineage were not recorded in the bible(though his days were numbered)…to more perfectly liken him to christ.
A man deceived into mimicking a man without honorable desires, is not responsible for the dishonor he has advocated. But the man who knowingly understands what dishonor is, and chooses it over honor, is fully accountable for preferring dishonor. Which are you M.r Micky? I contend to be a man with honor is to have and advocate the principled legal standard for the first doctrinal reformation of the church.
I will not stand for anyone to face justice in my place, i want credit and discredit given where it is due, and to whom it is due. Are you same kind of fellow as me Mr. Micky?
Important theological concepts about penal substitution depend on the doctrine of the Trinity. Those who believe that Jesus was himself God, in line with the doctrine of the Trinity, believe that God took the punishment upon himself rather than putting it on someone else. In other words, the doctrine of union with Christ affirms that by taking the punishment upon himself Jesus fulfils the demands of justice not for an unrelated third party but for those identified with him. If, in the penal substitution understanding of the atonement, the death of Christ deals with sin and injustice, his resurrection is the renewal and restoration of righteousness. Key biblical references upon which penal substitution is based include:
Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, 11—”Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all … It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin … By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.”
Romans 3:23-26—”All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.”
2 Corinthians 5:21—”For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Galatians 3:10, 13—”All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.’ … Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us – for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'”
1 Peter 2:24—”He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.”
1 Peter 3:18—”For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God.”
False premise number 1: Those who believe that Jesus was himself God, in line with the doctrine of the Trinity, believe that God took the punishment upon himself rather than putting it on someone else.
False premise number 2: the doctrine of union with Christ affirms that by taking the punishment upon himself Jesus fulfils the demands of justice
Not the third in reality, but third I am noting 3: his resurrection is the renewal and restoration of righteousness.
Justice does not and has never demanded an innocent be punished, be he man, angel or God. There was no righteousness to begin with concerning man, in order to even use the term “restoration of righteousness”. You never were righteous Mr. Micky, in order to be restored unto it. Adam wasn’t righteous either. One cannot be righteous without the knowledge of goodness, Adam did not have that knowledge, and he only gained it after he ate. A righteous Eve and a RIGHTEOUS Adam could not have been deceived or solicited without being deceived into eating of the tree. In this, you attempt and fail to define righteousness as alien from the knowledge of goodness and the love thereof.
Justice by “consensus” isn’t justice. There was no punishment or wrath involved at all between the Father and the Son, during His ordeal on the cross. And it is not the scriptures that you cite, but it is your “interpretation” that you desperately want laid over them.
Romans 3:23 It was for the demonstration of His righteousness, and the “former sins” are hemartion, or are aiming for the target or standard of righteousness and not being able to acheive it…or not punishable offenses. word means things, even greek words. Doing the acts of a murderer is not “hemartion”, which is desiring and trying to be good and failing.
(paraphrase) “For what I want to do, i do not and what I do not want to to I do, it is not I, but kakos…kakos is a form of unintentional evil and also is not a punishable offense.
1 Peter “he bore our falling short(hemartias) in his body”..was Peter including himself in the mix, as he denied the Lord 3 times, and Peter was writing to those who in ignorance cried for Him to be crucified, fellow jews, but Peter was more generally referring to Israel the nation. Peter sinned against the Lord by not testifying for Him.
Peter’s acts 2 and 3 explaination of what just occurred, included ZERO reference to Christ suffering the wrath of God for the sins of men. TWICE Peter spoke about what happened which is the CORE of the faith, and he said “you killed the author of life”.
The truth is Mr. Micky, is that you do not want to face justice or the wrath of God for the evils that are not the result of aiming for righteousness and falling short, but you want to be able (and do) to commit evil that actually deserves punishment and wrath AND DON’T WANT TO TAKE THE WRATH THAT YOU DESERVE! You “sir” are a DISHONORABLE MAN. Is this true of you or untrue?
Me, if I do anything that calls for punishment, I will have it no other way. I will not stand for someone else to unjustly take what I deserve! I AM AN HONORABLE MAN. And I seek justice…while you seek to avoid it…all the while not having the guts to admit it…so you try and make God the author of your own DISHONORABLE MOTIVES AND STATE. You do this by twisting and perverting the word of God.
He who does not have the truth and speak falsely is the DISHONORABLE MAN. Men speak falsely about God and give “their version of justice which always includes them completely escaping it”… YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE.
How is it possible that the one who seeks justice and to face it has the dishonorable motive…and the one who runs from justice as if from a forest fire, could possibly have an “honorable motive”???
Justice is achieved by the principles of the Mosaic law. The penal substitute theology heresy, is a total violation of the Mosaic law, and the entire scriptures themselves.
p.s. As for false premise number one, Jesus Christ was and is God in the flesh, and never was punished for the sins of others.
The question is, are you aware of your own dishonor, or are you deceived? We all were in times past dishonorable man, deceived and deceiving. I discovered my own dishonor and it currently abides in the landfill where trash belongs. Some are still dishonorable, in fact virtually all are, many are aware of it, and some are unaware. Which are you Mr. Macky?
This is a reply forwarded to me in an email from Mr. Jaffary, to what I don’t know, since it is not certain that Bob Jaffary even visited PLS.ORG since his first comment in the article. Since he is either unaware on my replies on this website, or he is conveniently ignoring them.
Here is Jaffary’s email:
BJ: Tim, I was looking over references to what I have written and somehow it looks like I lost track the discussion on
justification. I see a response at the site which I don’t remember receiving. You ask specifically my view. Well,
justification is an acquital, which means that when the case of a particular individual comes up for judgment
before God the case is dismissed because no valid evidence of guilt can be brought. So how can that occur? Is it
by “penal substitution”?
Well, it depends on what is meant. If it means that the penalty for wrongdoing is substituted from the sinner to Christ,
then justification as acquittal doesn’t make any sense at all. That is because a substitution of a penalty judged
against a person is not an acquittal but by a guilty verdict that is overturned. If penal substituion means
substitution of penal process in which the sinner is not judged but someone else is judged in his place, that is closer
in thought, because the sinner is not judged. But still he is not acquitted because in that case he doesn’t even come
to trial, since someone else is judged in his place. Something positive must be attributed to the sinner who actually
comes to trial. What does Scripture say? It says that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer.
Justification comes about penally by the righteous life of Christ being accounted to the believing sinner when
his case comes up for judgment. Because he has a perfect righteous life, though he has been accused of the
crimes he actually committed, that perfect righteous life is what is judged and he is acquitted of the charges.
Bob
Well Mr. Jaffary, your views do not jive with even the basics of scripture, on any level it seems, nor in your tortured view of law anything reminiscent of law at all. I will not do an exhaustive break down of your numerous violations(which is really he law violated by your view in i’ts entirety), but I will cite a few fundamentals.
1. Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness..at that moment, not reckoned as righteous later at the final judgment. The reckoning of righteousness is an argument made by the court, not with respect to Abe’s past, or future sins. Nor is it imputing or Christ’s righteousness being accounted to Abraham when his case comes up for judgment. First of all the judgment of believers and their cases occurs after this life, in they die, as in Abraham’s case is. Abraham’s judgment or case comes on the last day when the dead are raised. Those believers like Abraham actually have righteousness as they stand in review judgment. The justification or reckoning as righteous by the court or the justification which occurs at faith in Christ is a statement about them being justified in having faith in Christ and there are no legal issues held against them at that point in time. They have done the right thing, and anyone who chooses the lawful solution to their unlawful state…the court has no problems with them at that point.
2. There is a difference between the “reckoned or considered as righteous” by the court before the cross, and the being justified after the cross. Since Jesus Christ was under legal examination in His own case, being under legal scrutiny because of the accusations of Satan against God of an impure motive (basically everything Satan himself is guilty of), until legal proof, evidence was acquired which was the demonstration of His righteousness. Which is what the cross was for in order to qualify Him as “Not guilty of all charges made against Him by Satan”…qualifying Him as legal guardian of the souls of men and deliverer, through legal evidence…it was then that Abraham and everyone else who deemed Him to be trustworthy WERE VINDICATED! It was proven that Abraham and all pre-cross faithers were legally justified in having trusted in Him by the evidence that He was trustworthy. Post cross believers are proven to be justified in trusting in Christ, the evidence was in, on or around AD33. So when a person today believes, he is declared legally (not reckoned) but proven justified in having done so.
3. The penal substitute is a pile of dung and is right out of the heart of Satan. Your idea of a kangaroo court on crack is typical. Being good later is irrelevant to being sinful prior. You pretend God judges men not for the deeds they have done while in their bodies as they stand before God after death or translation, and use the word being accounted and you use the liberal insane penal substitute rationalization of unreal imputations or accountings not based on the man’s actual state. A person’s case doesn’t come up for review when he has faith in Christ, nor is it ended when he has faith in Christ.
4. The atonement only covered sins of ignorance and inability, or the debilitated state, those are all nonpunishable states, though they be not lawful states, the man is not held to account for what is beyond his control. You make the atonement (which is a lousy English word, mistranslation) to be about punishable crimes and even things that are not punishable. This is why you have no explanation for the infant that lives to months and dies…the infant has done nothing for which to be punished or suffer wrath for! Therefore Christ could not have been punished in the infants place. When in fact Christ was not punished in any man’s place. This is your biggest violation, which is the false premise that all deserve to be punished and every state that is not lawful YOU HAVE GOD CALLING FOR WRATH.
5. Maybe you should look up Strongs 3049? the same word is used in 2 Cor 5:19 not “counting” their trespasses against them. This is not secret weirdo pen sub interpretation code for “punishment”. The same word 3049 is used in “reckoned or counted” Strong’s 3049 found in Gal 3:6. In Rom 4:9 To Abraham “the faith” credited as righteousness. Abraham was reckoned as righteous in having “faith” in Christ…not by unreal imputation!
6. There is no transferal of anything from charges, guilt, punishment(if applicable) from one case to another. God don’t run a kangaroo twisted liberal ass deluded rationalization based on the unreal..COURT! It is a violation of law to assign anything from one man’s legal case to another.
7. You start out with the obvious airs concerning the entire sins of a persons life…AND THAT BEING THE ORIGINAL CASE. That original case cannot be ignored and the believer be being judged based on someone elses righteousness being accounted, or after actually being received. And by the way it is the same case all the way throughout. Abraham didn’t have two judgments in two different cases and even if that were the case, the second case does not annul or effect the first case.
8. You take an eye and you will lose and eye or the exact equivalent according to perfect justice, measure for measure, equity. Christ wasn’t punished for poneros, kakourgon, iniquity, or depravity..and I mean Charles Manson depravity, not the Calvinist unreal and misapplied term of “depravity”. An infant isn’t totally depraved! ALEISTER CROWLEY WAS AND STILL IS! know the difference, God does.
9. The bible is cover to cover with plain verses of God having wrath on the impious evildoer, committer of poneros kakourgon. Learn what words mean, hamarita and parapipto and paraphero are kakos states and offenses not poneros. It never says anywhere that Christ died for the evil of the world. It says hamartias, paraptomata, etc etc. Never lawlessness or iniquities or the love of evil. Words mean things Mr. the bible has been mistranslated by people who think like you, who ignore different words with different meanings and translate them all as sins, or all as evil, this was and is done purposely to create vagaries to make the bible open to “twisterpretation”.
I could go on, but what’s the point if you don’t get the legal arguments and scriptural arguments that I have made thus far, you would only be pretending not to get them. My God is not your God. My God can tell the difference between a baby and Hitler. And to suggest that God has wrath on man for his DNA (which you call original sin, BUT ARE WRONG)…it is like God holding you responsible for your hair color. Your God has a throne, not in Heaven but in orbit above the earth. Guess who he is?
Have you considered the view of participatory vicarious atonement? In this view, “Christ died as head, not in our stead.” His death was not a punishment from God the Father but the result of opposition from sinful men to His [Christ’s] zeal to do the will of the Father. “Take up your Cross and follow Me” likewise is seen as referring to a denial of oneself as the center of the universe. Salvation is ultimately achieved through the cooperation of man with God rather than God alone (Monergism) or man alone (Pelagianism). In participatory vicarious atonement, God’s primary role is that of loving Father, without denying his role as judge. The reconciled are nonetheless held accountable for their actions. By sharing in his passion and death we are promised a share in his resurrection to life.
You are using rationalizations and reasonings that are not according to nor based on principles of law. You have to use fundamental principles of law and jurisprudence, as it is a legal matter.