"Thus the promises of God give what the commandments of God demand and fulfill what the law prescribes so that all things may be God's alone, both the commandments and the fulfilling of the commandments."Martin Luther, Freedom of a Christian
Luther saw that the proper evangelical use of the Law is to drive us to desperation (Romans 3:19-20) so as to drive us to the Cross. At the cross we can get the revelation, as Luther himself did, that God's righteousness is not our condemnation, but our justification. This is true because by His grace He is both Just and our Justifier (Romans 3:26): i.e. He makes us righteous by taking our punishment (penal substitution) and giving us His righteousness.
Luther got the revelation that God's righteousness in Romans is not His justice in judging us, but His justice in making us just through the cross. When he realized this, Luther said..
"I felt myself to be born anew, and to enter through open gates into paradise itself. From here, the whole face of the Scriptures was altered. I ran through the Scriptures as memory served, and collected the same analogy in other words as opus dei, the work God works in us; virtus dei, that in which God makes us strong; sapienta dei, in which he makes us wise; fortitudo dei, salus dei, gloria dei."What a revelation! What a Savior!
I would object to the idea this was Penal Substitution. In fact, Rom 3:24-25 uses the terms "redeem" and "propitiation," both of which point away from a Psub interpretation. The term "redeem" indicates a buy back price, not a transfer of punishment. The term "propitiation" means to turn away wrath (appease), not to re-direct it onto a substitute. Thus in using this terminology, St Paul precluded the notion of Psub.
ReplyDeleteNick - Thanks for stopping by.
ReplyDeleteFor those who are not familiar with some of these theological terms and controversies, please pardon us as we exercise our theological "nerdom." ;)
Granting your interpretation of the terms "redeem" and "propitiate", I think it is a very big jump from that to saying that in this passage Paul "precluded the notion" of penal substitution at the cross. The concept of penal substitution (Christ our substitute taking our punishment) is so embeded throughout Pauline thought and the totality of Scripture (Eph 5:2, Heb. 9:14, Gal 1:4, Rom 8:3 and 1 Peter 3:18, just to name a few places) that it can be safely assumed as a background concept even where not specifically mentioned. This was logically and most thoroughly demonstrated by John Stott's in his classic work "The Cross of Christ."
Luther certainly believed in penal substitution. I, for myself, know that I am a sinner deserving judgment and that Jesus took my place and punishment. He took the penalty for my sin and transferred to me the benefits of my righteousness.
What a wonderful Savior!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I, for myself, know that I am a sinner deserving judgment and that Jesus took my place and punishment."
Nick: But this means Jesus was even damned in your place (because your sins deserve hell), this cannot be true. I have come across Protestants who affirm this (even Luther said Jesus was damned in our place), but really it is a troubling notion to me. It's a red flag to me that something is not right.
I don't see any of those passages you quoted indicate a transfer of punishment took place (I've been over them in my own personal study before). I certainly believe Jesus died for our sins, but I don't believe this was in the form of Penal Substitution. And I say this having studied the Bible on this issue, including a recent debate against a Calvinist on the topic (posted on my webpage).
Nick - I do firmly believe in penal substitution. I believe it because I believe it is taught clearly in Scripture. I believe it because it has been believed and taught by every Bible teacher I respect and by the official documents of every protestant denomination. I believe it because it matches my experience - my knowledge of my sin and of God's acceptance of me in Christ.
ReplyDeleteIf you do not believe it, I am so sorry. I know that some in the emerging church camp have written off this doctrine as a form of Divine "child abuse." I cannot accept that position.
You are welcome to read and to comment here any time. However, I do not wish to get into an argument on this subject. My position, and the position of this website, is that Jesus became sin for us, and took the wrath of God against sin upon himself, so that we might be called the righteousness of God. As one greater than me said - "Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God!"
I respect your conclusions. My hope at the very least is that people are at least studying the Bible on this issue for themself, and not just accepting it because others told them so.
ReplyDeleteToo often in my experience have I come across people who just assume the Bible teaches Psub when they havn't really studied it for themself. If you are not one of those people, I respect that.