Articles for discussion
Moral intuition v The authority of God’s Word
R.L. Dabney, the famous Presbyterian theologian of the 19th century, quoted opponents of Penal Substitution as saying:
‘… just government, human or divine, cannot transfer one man’s guilt to another who is innocent, under any possible conditions, because punishment loses its moral significance, and becomes cruelty and wickedness as soon as it is transferred from the sinning person to another.’
To this ethical objection, he replied:
‘… they set their philosophy above all the authority claimed for God’s word.’ (Christ Our Penal Substitute, Ch.8).
According to Dabney, regardless of what we know by moral intuition, the authority of Scripture is paramount and must override all objections of conscience. Nevertheless, the obvious danger of this position is in the misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture to defend positions or actions that are either completely wrong or, at best, far from the ideal.
Clear examples include Dabney’s own defence of North American slavery; the German reformer Martin Luther’s use of Scripture to support anti-Semitism; and the doctrinal support given by Thomas Aquinas for the Inquisition and the use of the secular arm for the execution (normally preceded by torture) of those supposed guilty of schism or heresy (Summa Theologica, 2-2: 11, 3 & 4). Luther not only preached that the age-long sufferings of the Jews proved God’s hatred of them, but went on to advise the Germans to burn down the homes of Jews, to close their synagogues and schools, to confiscate their wealth, to conscript their men and women into forced labour; and wrote, ‘All Jews should be given the choice between either accepting Christ, or having their tongues torn out’ (Concerning the Jews and their lies, 1542). One could also mention the drowning of Baptists in Calvin’s Geneva besides giving many more instances where a God-given conscience and moral intuition within man should have claimed precedent over man’s logic and his interpretation of God’s written word. This is biblical and we are without excuse:
‘Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law … show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts either accusing or else excusing them’ (Rom.2:14, NKJ).
So now we have the ‘logic’ of penal substitution overriding the law of God in the heart of man. The Bible is the authority for doctrine, but we need to be very careful that we do not just rely on our own human logic for its interpretation. The Holy Spirit heightens, not quells, the law of God in man’s heart.
Norman McIlwain
A response to the authors of Pierced for our Transgressions
Quote: ‘Some who believe in penal substitution have replied by pointing out that Christ suffered willingly, or by noting that God gave himself in Christ to suffer in our place. But while these things are gloriously true, neither actually answers the objection. If guilty sinners are acquitted and an innocent third party is punished, then irrespective of his willingness an injustice has been committed, and it is unthinkable that God would do such a thing.
How are we to respond? The flaw in the argument is the unstated premise that Christ is unrelated to the believer, an unconnected third party. This is not true, for believers are in union with Christ — he is in us, and we are in him, indwelt by his Spirit (e.g. John 17:21; Romans 6:5; 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 1:27; Philippians 1:1). It is for this reason that the imputation of our guilt to Christ and his righteousness to us, his punishment and our acquittal, are just in the sight of God.’
What’s all the fuss about? A Brief Introduction to the Penal Substitution Debate by Steve Jeffery, Andrew Sach and Mike Ovey (authors’ comment on the website for the book: ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’)
It is well that the authors recognize that punishing the innocent in the place of the guilty is an act of injustice. However, their argument is that Jesus was imputed guilt as a result of His relationship and union with believers.
Yes, believers are in union with Christ — He in us and we in Him. We are made at-one with God, indwelt of the Holy Spirit. It is for this reason we are righteous — covered by the righteous life He gave as a sweet smelling offering and sacrifice for us at the cross (Eph.5:2). An impure offering God will not accept. This ‘oneness’ is the outcome of the atonement Jesus made. We share in His righteousness through faith and consent to the Law of the Spirit in Christ. We are atoned with God — reconciled to God in the righteousness of His Son.
It is not the other way around – that God became reconciled to us and that Jesus became atoned to sinners! For Jesus to have become legally guilty for the sins of believers, He would need to have consented to their crimes. Mere relationship to those who sin does not impart guilt: ‘The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son’ (Ezek.18:20, NKJ). The ‘union’ that is required of one to be imputed criminal guilt is that of complicity in the unlawful acts. Legally and biblically it was not possible for Jesus to have been made guilty for sin. The punishment He suffered was an act of injustice, as the Bible states: ‘His justice was taken away’ (Acts 8:33, NKJ). ‘He submitted Himself to Him who judges righteously,’ Peter wrote (1 Pet.2:23, NKJ). The resurrection was God’s act of justice – overturning the verdict of an illegal court, whilst proclaiming the righteousness of the One who died.
For those who truly repent God promises life, not death — forgiveness and healing, not wrath and punishment. Forgiveness is part of God’s Law; and, when God completely forgives, the beneficiaries are completely absolved from all the penal consequences of all past guilt and sin. In other words, when sinners repent and turn to Christ, condemnation is taken away. God’s response is to forgive, not to punish. The wrath of God remains for those who do not repent; it is not for those who do. Jesus did not die for the sake of the incorrigibly wicked — for whom God’s wrath is justly reserved.
Rather than upholding biblical truth, the doctrine of penal substitution actually contradicts it.
Norman McIlwain
The ‘Federal Headship’ fallacy
A common question:
The Federal Headship of Christ enables Him to be the legal representative of all who are saved through Him. Doesn’t this imply that as the Federal Head, He must also be responsible for the sins of those He represents – and so suffer their due punishment?
The principle of Federal Headship in legal terms can easily be understood with reference to company law, where it is sometimes applied. The owners of a company are responsible for actions that happen within the company rules and consent of management. Corporate manslaughter is a good example. However, the company would need to be involved in the action. One employee murdering another in a fit of temper, for example, would not make the owners of the company guilty for the crime. It would have happened without their consent and certainly against company rules. However, drugs manufactured that later are found to cause death would make the company and its owners liable. Guilt would rightly be imputed – because of the company’s consent to the manufacture. Consent makes all the difference. God does not consent to sin. Mankind broke the rules – God is not implicated in our guilt.
On the contrary, at the cross, Jesus gave His life in complete righteousness and without any stain of sin whatsoever. Because of this, His offering was acceptable to God and so are we, whose lives are covered by His own. Thus, we are justified by the grace of God – not as a result of our own righteousness, but by reason of the righteousness of God imputed to us in Christ through faith.
Norman McIlwain
The sin of Achan
‘God …visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children …’ (Ex.20:5) and ‘Achan’ (Josh. 7): are not these examples of God imputing the guilt of one to another?
Ex.20:5: ‘For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me.’ This speaks of a household and hate towards God – possibly great grandparents, grandparents, parents and children. Achan died with his whole household. We don’t know how many were in this family, but we might reasonably surmise that what Achan did – rebelling with lust for silver and gold – received the approval of his children. Quite likely the family knew what was in the tent, but said nothing and may even have been secretly pleased about it. Just because they were not the ones to take the initial decision, in defiance of God’s command, does not mean that they had disapproved of Achan’s actions. Nothing is said, but God does not punish the innocent. If such punishment is brought upon the sons and daughters, then the children have been corrupted and complicit in some way in the crimes of the parents, perhaps by following their wrong example. We see that today – criminal activities can run in families. God is just; and if the children are punished for the crimes of parents, then it is because the children are wilfully inclined to act criminally in like manner. God knows all. Members of a family are each judged by their own conduct (see Ezekiel 18). Children who are not implicated in the sins of parents and obey God do not share in their guilt: ‘ “Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?” Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live’ (Ezek.18:19, NKJ).
Norman McIlwain
Two common questions answered
If God can impute righteousness to us, then why not sin to Christ?
It is all about consent. Sin cannot be imputed to Jesus because He never yielded to evil. He yielded His will to the Father. To be attributed sin, one must consent to sin. Those who give their consent to evil without repentance will be condemned with the devil. By consenting to follow Christ in faith, God, in His grace and mercy, judges us righteous in His Son.
If God is unjust in punishing Christ for the sinful, then surely He is unjust in punishing mankind for the sin of Adam?
Regarding Adam’s sin … When Adam sinned, mankind was judged sinful and appointed to die. Was God wrong in His judgment? Certainly not, we are sinful. God, of course, judged correctly. Spiritually, we all answer for our own sins. This is biblical. It is unlawful to punish the innocent for the guilty. Therefore God did not punish Christ.
Justice is not upheld by punishing the innocent in the place of the guilty. You don’t need a law degree to see that. It is common sense.
Norman McIlwain
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ';' in /home/normanna/public_html/wp-content/themes/surprising-sunset-10/footer.php on line 216