Penal wrath before conversion and the double-payment argument

[TryingToLearn]

Since the penal wrath of God abides upon sinners before they are saved, aren't they paying for sins that God already imputed to Christ for Him to pay for?

A "yes" answer (which I can't see how one would avoid) seems to mitigate against Owen's argument that God cannot demand payment for sin twice. Man was in the process of paying for sins that were already paid for by Christ.

 

[Knight]

Since the penal wrath of God abides upon sinners before they are saved, aren't they paying for sins that God already imputed to Christ for Him to pay for?

A "yes" answer (which I can't see how one would avoid) seems to mitigate against Owen's argument that God cannot demand payment for sin twice. Man was in the process of paying for sins that were already paid for by Christ.

The only persons whose sins are imputed to Christ are those who are united to Him. As we are not united to Christ until and unless we are converted, our being under the wrath of God until that time is just.

 

[John The Baptist]

In what sense do you think we are under the penal wrath of God pre conversion?

aren't they paying for sins that God already imputed to Christ for Him to pay for?

I think the question could be worded better. As said above, they aren’t imputed until union, in time. But the question of how he paid for the sin of the elect on the cross without double paying (if we are under penal wrath now, that is) may be a more appropriate answer.

In fact, something about the double payment argument that has troubled me: punishment is eternal, because sin is infinitely offensive to a holy God and it will take eternity for the punishment to me given out. So, even if Christ died for just one, wouldn’t the “value” of his death be infinite? Then what is the difference between that and the Arminian universal atonement? I have a feeling that the “limitedness” of the atonement is in its aim, not worth, but I would appreciate some thoughts. I am slowly reading through Owen’s the death of death.

On another note, I don’t think we’re under penal wrath until death or Christ’s return. Romans 2 speaks about unbelievers “storing up wrath for themselves on the day of wrath.” I think if we were under penal wrath we would just die instantaneously. Romans 3 talks about God’s forbearance in overlooking sin in the OT. And in Matthew 5 Jesus teaches about God’s common grace. So, I do not think we, as living unbelievers, are under penal wrath.

 

[Knight]

I think some of these sorts of questions become less confusing when we stop thinking about the atonement in terms of a money payment. The "price" associated with "purchasing" redemption means God forgives sinners with just grounds... but which sinners?

What Jesus literally did was [offer Himself as a] substitute for those who believe. He isn't a substitute for we sinners until and unless we believe. With this in mind, it's less difficult, I think, to see why there is no question of His being a "double substitute" and how that helps us understand any pecuniary metaphors.

 

[Polanus1561]

OP is thinking of John 3:36

 

[Taylor]

Since the penal wrath of God abides upon sinners before they are saved…

I’m not so sure this is true. Even in John 3:36, Jesus seems to be speaking of final and consummate unbelief, not the temporary unbelief in the elect. He says, “He who does not obey the Son will not see life.” This cannot be true of the unbelieving elect because they will see life, even before their conversion; they are elect and therefore will eventually believe. So, I think it would be appropriate to understand Jesus to be saying here that those who never believer will never see life.

On top of this, there are passages that indicate the Lord is not wrathful toward the unbelieving elect, but is rather working all things toward their salvation. For example, consider 2 Peter 3:9—“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some consider slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”

 

[alexandermsmith]

To my mind the difficulty here is the use of the word "penal" in relation to wrath. Ephesians 2:3 ("Among whom also we [the elect] all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.") paired with John 3:36 ("He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.") should clear the difficulty. By nature every person is a sinner and in rebellion against God and God's wrath is towards all sin (and sinners as sinners). However, Christ paid the penalty for the sin of His elect and therefore the wrath of God will not abide on them: they will be converted in due time and justified and vindicated on the Day of Judgment. Whereas those who do not repent will ultimately receive the just, eternal punishment for their sins: the wrath of God will abide on them. Whilst it's true that all sinners (the elect and the reprobate alike) suffer the consequences of their sins in this life to some degree (some more than others, and the elect will be kept from the soul-destroying consequences of sin) the truly penal aspect of the wrath of God is not applied until an unrepentant sinner dies. So the elect are not under penal wrath before they are converted (they are not paying the full price their sins deserve, which is an eternity in Hell) therefore they are not paying for their sins again. Even converted sinners are subject to the Lord's chastisement. But what Christ paid on the Cross was the eternal penalty that the sins of the elect deserve and therefore the punishment of eternal damnation was removed from off them, the Law being satisfied by Christ's sacrifice.

The introduction of the word "penal" merely confuses matters. Scripture doesn't ever use the term "penal wrath" as far as I know so we should avoid it as well. Of course the concept is there (hence penal substitutionary atonement) but when we start using the term and applying it to the Lord's people (which Scripture tells us were the children of wrath as others are) then the use of the phrase causes trouble.

 

[Knight]

To follow up on what Alexander said above, I also don't think there is tension in saying that while we were elect yet unconverted sinners, we experienced both 1) the wrath of God and 2) the love of God. We were enemies, condemned in sin. Yet God was even then lovingly orchestrating events which would bring us to His Son.

Analogously, the Father both punished Christ in the place of those who believing sinners - displacing His wrath against said sinners - and at every point looked upon Him as the obedient, beloved Son in whom He was well pleased.

Now, abiding wrath and abiding love may be contradictories, but I see no reason to think that wrath and love are contradictories per se.

 

[TryingToLearn]

To my mind the difficulty here is the use of the word "penal" in relation to wrath. Ephesians 2:3 ("Among whom also we [the elect] all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.") paired with John 3:36 ("He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.") should clear the difficulty. By nature every person is a sinner and in rebellion against God and God's wrath is towards all sin (and sinners as sinners). However, Christ paid the penalty for the sin of His elect and therefore the wrath of God will not abide on them: they will be converted in due time and justified and vindicated on the Day of Judgment. Whereas those who do not repent will ultimately receive the just, eternal punishment for their sins: the wrath of God will abide on them. Whilst it's true that all sinners (the elect and the reprobate alike) suffer the consequences of their sins in this life to some degree (some more than others, and the elect will be kept from the soul-destroying consequences of sin) the truly penal aspect of the wrath of God is not applied until an unrepentant sinner dies. So the elect are not under penal wrath before they are converted (they are not paying the full price their sins deserve, which is an eternity in Hell) therefore they are not paying for their sins again. Even converted sinners are subject to the Lord's chastisement. But what Christ paid on the Cross was the eternal penalty that the sins of the elect deserve and therefore the punishment of eternal damnation was removed from off them, the Law being satisfied by Christ's sacrifice.

The introduction of the word "penal" merely confuses matters. Scripture doesn't ever use the term "penal wrath" as far as I know so we should avoid it as well. Of course the concept is there (hence penal substitutionary atonement) but when we start using the term and applying it to the Lord's people (which Scripture tells us were the children of wrath as others are) then the use of the phrase causes trouble.

I guess my follow up question would be: ought we to say that any unbelievers are ever under the penal wrath of God prior to death, or ought we to save "penal wrath" only for after an unbeliever's death?

Full disclosure: my question was brought about by a quotation from John Norton here (between pages 124 and 125): https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A89732.0001.001/1:5.13?rgn=div2;view=fulltext where he says that demons are under the penal wrath of God even before the final judgment (note the James 2:19 citation; he does not mean only those demons bound in the abyss). This reminded me of John 3:36 and made me wonder whether we ought to say this is also true of unbelieving humans.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I guess my follow up question would be: ought we to say that any unbelievers are ever under the penal wrath of God prior to death, or ought we to save "penal wrath" only for after an unbeliever's death?

Full disclosure: my question was brought about by a quotation from John Norton here (between pages 124 and 125): https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A89732.0001.001/1:5.13?rgn=div2;view=fulltext where he says that demons are under the penal wrath of God even before the final judgment (note the James 2:19 citation; he does not mean only those demons bound in the abyss). This reminded me of John 3:36 and made me wonder whether we ought to say this is also true of unbelieving humans.

Well I suppose that depends on what we mean by demons as distinct from those which are already in Hell. But if I understand Scripture all men are on mercy's ground whilst they live on Earth and therefore no one is, in this life, suffering the final, full penalty for his sins. But in terms of the elect and payment for their sins it would be wrong to say there is a double payment. Christ didn't die to take away all suffering and consequence for sin from His people, but to take away the penalty of death from His people. Certainly the Lord restrains His elect even before conversion but even an elect person can suffer for his sins. But the penalty is distinct from general suffering or consequences.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Well I suppose that depends on what we mean by demons as distinct from those which are already in Hell. But if I understand Scripture all men are on mercy's ground whilst they live on Earth and therefore no one is, in this life, suffering the final, full penalty for his sins. But in terms of the elect and payment for their sins it would be wrong to say there is a double payment. Christ didn't die to take away all suffering and consequence for sin from His people, but to take away the penalty of death from His people. Certainly the Lord restrains His elect even before conversion but even an elect person can suffer for his sins. But the penalty is distinct from general suffering or consequences.

I suppose it's just hard for me to see how we can speak of physical evils for unbelievers in this life being punishments for sin yet not being penal (unless, of course, we deny that they are even punishments). Certainly for believers, they are not punishments, but fatherly chastisements, but this is not the same for unbelievers. Physical evil necessarily presupposes moral evil, whether imputed or personal. Though believers may receive physical evil in this life that is not punishment, it's hard for me to see how we can say the same of unbelievers.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I suppose it's just hard for me to see how we can speak of physical evils for unbelievers in this life being punishments for sin yet not being penal (unless, of course, we deny that they are even punishments). Certainly for believers, they are not punishments, but fatherly chastisements, but this is not the same for unbelievers. Physical evil necessarily presupposes moral evil, whether imputed or personal. Though believers may receive physical evil in this life that is not punishment, it's hard for me to see how we can say the same of unbelievers.

Perhaps one solution might be to say that before the elect are justified, they endure some penal consequences against their sin, though not fully, and that what didn’t come upon them, was paid for by Christ.

PS, can’t wait until that photo of yours turns to 1646.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Certainly for believers, they are not punishments, but fatherly chastisements, but this is not the same for unbelievers. Physical evil necessarily presupposes moral evil, whether imputed or personal. Though believers may receive physical evil in this life that is not punishment, it's hard for me to see how we can say the same of unbelievers.

I think you're answering your own question here. Believers and unbelievers are two different categories. What are fatherly chastisements for believers are punishments for unbelievers which anticipate the eternal punishment for their sins. Believers, or the elect before conversion, are not promised safety from all consequences of sin. And Christ's atonement was not to remove from His people all consequences of sin in this life. What it did remove was the sentence of eternal death from His people. Humanly speaking having paid the penalty for a wrong doesn't mean one will not suffer any consequence of the wrong. But nor does that mean one is paying the penalty for the wrong twice over. There are real consequences from sin, general to all men and specific to individuals- such as disease or injury incurred in committing a specific sin, for example. But the penalty which Christ paid is the legal penalty for the elect man's sin.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Perhaps one solution might be to say that before the elect are justified, they endure some penal consequences against their sin, though not fully, and that what didn’t come upon them, was paid for by Christ.

PS, can’t wait until that photo of yours turns to 1646.

On further reflection, perhaps that’s not the best solution.

Sinners aren’t able to satisfy divine justice for their sins, and indeed only incur further wrath and guilt because their very suffering is itself sinful. So perhaps that answers how there is no double payment involved at all.

 

[John The Baptist]

Something else to keep in mind here is that his sacrifice was sufficient for all of humanity, but not efficient.