Either God Must Punish Sin or There is No Need for Forgiveness - by Doug Eaton

Our comments in bold.

-----------------

We first came across another of the author's articles here, which was a scriptureless "defense" of the reformist doctrine known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. We briefly commented there about the lack of Scripture, and we also contested the idea that the Father punished Jesus.

The author responded with a link to 80+ Scriptures, none of which were about the Father punishing Jesus. The author did quote one:

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

He also linked to the below article, which is the subject of today's post, and lastly, we will take up this Scripture. 

-----------------

Why did Jesus have to die? Many object to the fact that Christ had to be put to death and that blood had to be shed for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28). They believe this is unbecoming of God. Others believe that if we as humans can forgive each other without punishment and God cannot, then humans are more kind and forgiving than God.*

We hear these arguments coming from people who think they need to protect God from the doctrine of penal substitution. (Are there really only these two arguments against this doctrine, both superfluous?)

Besides their lack of understanding scripture, these arguments escape reason. (We shall examine the author's reasoning, although his logical process is only of passing interest to us. All logic is based on premises. If the premises are wrong, it doesn't matter how excellent is the ensuing process.

We would rather examine the author's Scriptural case.)

They escape reason because the same people who make these arguments then go on to make distinctions between good and evil and preach moral living.

Why should man be moral? Why is it wrong to be immoral? These are the questions Anselm raised when dealing with the necessity of Christ’s death. (The author will let Anselm speak for him with an odd and unenlightening presentation.

And by the way, we are unfamiliar with any Christian that thinks Christ's death was unnecessary.)

He then went on to lay out the following argument: To remit sin without satisfaction or adjustment (??) is not to punish it. (Does God really punish sin, or instead, does He punish the sinner? 

Sin is not an entity that can be punished, it is a characteristic or status of the unregenerate man. And a quick review of the NT reveals a number of verses that refer to God punishing the sinner [1Th. 4:6, He. 10:29, 2Pe. 2:9, and Jude 7, for example], but none that say He punishes sin. 

One verse in particular, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, expressly states that God will punish sinners:

He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 

The word "punish" is ekdikésis, which means to inflict punishment on [render vengeance to] one. Clearly God does punish the sinner, for it is the sinner who commits sin, but we cannot assent to the idea that He punishes sin.

Further, the word "remission" or "forgiveness" is aphesis, to pardon, letting them go. We find the word here:

He. 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

To remit or to forgive is to release or pardon. To do so lifts the intended punishment, it does not transfer it elsewhere. The spilled blood of Jesus is the sufficient agent for our sin, turning away the wrath of God [this is known as propitation]. God is satisfied by the blood and requires nothing more from anyone to effect forgiveness. We are released. So forgiveness does not imply some sort of an exchange or payment in return, which is what seems to be suggested by Anselm and the author. 

That is, it seems the author appears to believe that forgiven sin still needs to be paid for. The author supplies no Scripture that documents this.)

And if sin needs no adjustment (??) or punishment, then the one who sins is no different before God than the one who does not sin. (The issue continues to be framed as punishing sin instead of the sinner. 

However, it is clear the sinner shall be punished, and that is him receiving his just due:

Jn. 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins. 

Why would Anselm think that his argument needs to be offered in order to counter the idea that sin would not need punishment, when no true Christian argues such?)

And if there is no adjustment (?? Here's that word "adjustment" for the third time. We have no idea what adjustment needs to be made or who is making this adjustment or even why, because the author never tells us.)

that needs to be made before God, then what needs to be forgiven? Following this logic there is no reason for forgiveness at all because to be unrighteous or righteous makes no difference before God. Therefore, it is unbecoming of God not to punish sin because it would make evil and good equal in His sight. Since this cannot be the case, then God must punish sin.

The idea that God can forgive sin without requiring its just punishment (We finally get to a coherent assertion regarding why the author is citing this argument. But it's more like a shift to a somewhat different idea. Previously, the narrative was that the opposing side was arguing that God would not punish sin. But now the author says that the actual opposing [i.e., incorrect] argument is that God can forgive sin without punishing sin. 

The author believes that God's forgiveness does not wipe away sins. Which would mean forgiven sins remain to be punished. Which is why the author has repeatedly insisted than God punishes sin. Thus God still has to punish someone. From that he will eventually argue that forgiveness means our sins were transferred to Jesus for Him to receive punishment.

The author never documents any of these assertions with Scripture. We also remember that the author was going to supply reasoning and logic. We now have arrived at the point where we are not certain he is going to do so.)

leads us to another conundrum. If it is true that God does not need to justly punish sin, then anyone He sends to hell would be sent there arbitrarily and not out of necessity. Of course, that would be reprehensible which is why many who reject penal substitution eventually become universalists (the idea, contrary to scripture, that no one will go to hell). (Hmmm. So it seems there is actually a third argument against the author's doctrine, offered by universalists. Universalists would say that no one goes to hell, but we believe anyone who holds to this doctrine would be a heretic.

We would also wonder if there might be even more arguments, perhaps ones that are more articulate and even biblical?)

The wages of sin is death according to scripture (Rom. 6:23). (The verse does not say that the wages of sin is punishment.)

For God to offer forgiveness, the satisfaction of these wages must be met. (Agreed.)

This is what the cross is all about. (Agreed.)

Christ bore upon Himself the sins of all those who come to Him through faith. (Undocumented statement. We shall do the author's work for him:

1Pe. 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

"Bore" is anapheró, which  means to carry up, to bring to the altar. So He carried our sins as a burden, like someone taking out the garbage. Our sin was lifted up by Him and its condemnation was nailed to the cross:

Col. 2:14 ...having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Took it" is airó, which means raise, lift up, carry away. So Jesus did not "bear" sin as in "bear the punishment for sin," He bore sin in the sense that He was the vehicle to carry sin to the cross where the blood is applied.

This makes perfect sense when we consider the scapegoat, which was not punished, was not regarded as guilty, and was not despised. The scapegoat had the hands of the priest laid upon it, and it was released outside the city, symbolizing the carrying of the sins of Israel outside the camp [see He. 13:12-13].

The scapegoat did not become sinful. In fact, none of the sacrificial animals were regarded as sinful. None of them were beaten or abused. 

Therefore, the Father did not punish Jesus, the Lamb of God.)

It necessarily had to happen in order for God to be both just and the justifier of those who believe in Him (Rom. 3:26).

Every sin will receive its just recompense. (Again we do the author's work for him:

He. 2:2-3a For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation...

Up to this point the writer of Hebrews had been occupied with showing the superiority of the Son above the angels [He. 1:9]. In fact, this is what the whole first chapter is about. He then drew a conclusion from this explanation:

He. 2:1 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.

"Therefore." Because of what was just explained, because the Son is so highly seated, even above the angels, we should "therefore" pay careful attention to the message spoken by Him [He. 1:2]. 

Then the writer of Hebrews supplied the reason for his conclusion, which is the subject verse:

He. 2:2-3a For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation...

Ahh, so if the binding, firm statements of angels yielded a just recompense, that is, when the angels delivered the words of God to various men at various times, then how much more would the message of the Lord Himself do even more? Not only is the Son so much higher than the angels, so are His words.

This means the subject verse is about what angels spoke, not about this great salvation. The speaking of Jesus supersedes and eclipses the angels.

It seems the author is misapplying this uncited Scripture.)

Either we will pay for it ourselves, or, through faith, we will accept His payment upon the cross on our behalf.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. – Isaiah 53:4

(Now it is time to deal with the messianic statements of Isaiah 53, which we believe are misinterpreted by proponents of Penal Substitutionary Atonement because of the filter of their doctrine. 

Isaiah affirms a truth in vs. 4, that He "hath borne" (nasa or nasah, to lift, carry, take) and "carried" (sabal, to bear [a heavy load]) our griefs and sorrows.

Take careful note: Isaiah first says, "Surely," then uses the word "yet:"

....Surely he ...carried our sorrows: yet... 

Isaiah notes the flawed perception we have. We considered him smitten by God. Do you see it? We have a mistaken idea regarding what's going on. Isaiah says "surely" He was <this>, "yet" we said He was <something else>. 

Now comes the "but." Isaiah immediately sets the record straight about this errant <something else> in verse 5:

Is. 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Here’s the logical train of thought, provided because the author values reason:

• Truth Statement: Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows...
• False Perception: ...yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
• False Perception Corrected: But he was wounded for our transgressions...

Isaiah's correction is a restatement of his initial truth statement: He was wounded, bruised, and chastised. Crucially, Isaiah does not say that God did this. The reader will recall that it was the Jews and also the Roman soldiers who abused Him, beat Him, and crucified Him.

He carried our sin, therefore, the Father didn't punish Him.

That's what Isaiah is telling us here. The features of the crucifixion are being detailed for us, hundreds of years before the actual event. Let’s paraphrase the verse, separating it from the false idea that the Father punished Jesus: 

"He was wounded for our evils; He carried our problems. But for some reason we thought He was punished by God. But He wasn't. The horrible things He suffered were for our benefit."

We would welcome the opportunity to dialogue further with the author. Perhaps he has additional evidence for us to consider.)

-D. Eaton

*Even we cannot forgive each other without a cost being paid. If you break my lamp on purpose, and I say, “I forgive you,” some one has to pay for the new lamp. If I slander your good name, and you say, “I forgive you,” there is still a cost. Either you will bear the damage I have done to your reputation, or, if I go to all your friends and tell them I slandered, I will bear a loss of my own reputation. More importantly, even those sins against each other are sins against God for which either we will pay or Christ will bear in our place. Even among each other, sin always has a cost. (Notice in each example there is damage which needs to be repaired. But what about telling someone a lie? Insulting someone? Yelling at someone in anger? These are all forgivable situations that do not require "payment" in the sense the author is delineating. 

Because Jesus didn't pay for our sins. He paid for us: 

Ro. 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.  

Rev. 5:9 Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood...

Forgiveness is unconditionally offered because we repented and believed. Our sins have been wiped away by the blood and forgotten, not transferred to Jesus.

The author seriously misunderstands the nature of Jesus' sacrificial death.)