What are your thoughts on this?

[Sovereign Grace]

A Brother on another forum posted this:

Oh dear, oh dear! "------" and I have threshed this matter to death over ten or more years, and I have absolutely no desire to do so again. Over those ten years I have explained time after time that God did not punish the Lord Jesus; He had done nothing worthy of punishment. God punished us for our sin in Him (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24) Therefore it is no surprise that the Church Fathers do not mention it. However, Penal Substitution is found in many places in the Church Fathers' works as I have shown many times.

Now, this is a very solid, Reformed Baptist who stated this. I've always thought that God the Father did indeed punish the Son on our behalf. What are your thoughts about this?

 

[Polanus1561]

why does the quote so weird? "God punished us for our sin in Him"?
...It's not mentioned.... but mentioned in the early church fathers?

 

[C4MERON]

I should wonder, then, what we do with texts such as Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief”..
And
2 Cor 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin”

 

[Sovereign Grace]

why does the quote so weird? "God punished us for our sin in Him"?
...It's not mentioned.... but mentioned in the early church fathers?

It was Christ who was the One who bore our punishment in our place. But to say that God did not punish Jesus is not sound theology, in my opinion.
[automerge]1746001969[/automerge]

I should wonder, then, what we do with texts such as Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief”..
And
2 Cor 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin”

I would think places like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 would invalidate the OP quote.

 

[No Other Name]

A Brother on another forum posted this:




Now, this is a very solid, Reformed Baptist who stated this. I've always thought that God the Father did indeed punish the Son on our behalf. What are your thoughts about this?

You mean an otherwise solid Reformed Baptist? I can't really make heads or tails of the quote.

I mean, he seems to affirm penal substitution but has an odd way of looking at it as if his view is informed by some other view of atonement like maybe Abelard's?

I don't know, but I do know one thing. It is always a red flag when someone says they are tired of explaining the same thing for years and then follows it up with a vague and cryptic statement that explains nothing and is ripe for follow-up questions.

If you have dealt thoroughly with this issue for years, you certainly should have a more clear-cut "elevator pitch" summary than: "God punished us for our sin in Him"?

What is "our sin in Him"? What is he saying here? How are "we punished" then if not by the sacrifice that is required for our sin? How does that cryptic phrase get helped at all by Is. 53:6 and 1 Pet. 2:24?

 

[MW]

I can't really make heads or tails of the quote.

Neither can I. I started to place it within the satisfaction v. substitution debate, but then the last sentence about the fathers put an end to that.

 

[alexanderjames]

Well, granted when speaking in an isolated proper sense, I can understand what he's getting at by "God did not punish the Lord Jesus; He had done nothing worthy of punishment", but I certainly agree the language is at best confusing when he states "God punished us for our sin in Him", which could be interpreted in wildly different ways. It makes Paul's language look easy!
In my mind he needs to rework his presentation of the argument with more clarity.

 

[JP Wallace]

I'm completely baffled not only sharing your collective bafflement but also in another way: your friend said - "God punished us for our sin in Him"

I believe taking the texts cited that Christ was indeed punished not for his own sin, but for ours. But in addition how is the first part of that sentence ever correct or even hinted at in the Bible....we are never punished for our sin if we believe in Jesus!

The gospel is the complete opposite of what he wrote - "God punished us for our sin" is not the Gospel and in no way explains any view of the atonement. "God punished Christ for our sin" - that is the Gospel and does explain how God is both just and the justifier of sinners.

 

[Ploutos]

It sounds like he is trying to say that God attributed the punishment due to us to Christ, and he is wary of saying Christ was punished because it would imply that Christ was worthy of punishment.

Assessing charitably, it sounds like he is trying to make a valid point, but he is going about it in a bad way that reflects either an inability to clearly formulate his thoughts or a problematic lack of familiarity with the language of Scripture and the church fathers who have written about this.

 

[Parakaleo]

Reading the psalms prophetically, we see evidence of Christ identifying very strongly with the sins he bore.

 

[No Other Name]

Reading the psalms prophetically, we see evidence of Christ identifying very strongly with the sins he bore.
View attachment 11959

Absolutely. It helps to be reminded that growing up, Christ sang these psalms and prayed these psalms. There is no disconnect when one steps back and looks at the big picture and why he came and what happened on Calvary.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

It sounds like he is trying to say that God attributed the punishment due to us to Christ, and he is wary of saying Christ was punished because it would imply that Christ was worthy of punishment.

Assessing charitably, it sounds like he is trying to make a valid point, but he is going about it in a bad way that reflects either an inability to clearly formulate his thoughts or a problematic lack of familiarity with the language of Scripture and the church fathers who have written about this.

The doctrine of imputation teaches that whoever is imputed either Adam's guilt or Christ's righteousness, God treats them as if they were the ones who did it. We only stand before Him due to Christ's righteousness being imputed to us, and God treats us as if we were the ones who kept the law perfectly, and if that is not worthy of praise, then I have no idea what is. The same goes for Christ when He was imputed His sheep's sins. God treated Him as if He was the one who had committed those sins. That was the only way Christ could have died for us. He is forever the sinless, spotless, Lamb of God, but He was treated as a guilty sinner when He took our sins upon Himself. So, Christ was punished for our sins, seeing He had no personal sins worthy of punishment,

 

[Pictet]

Oh dear, oh dear! "------" and I have threshed this matter to death over ten or more years, and I have absolutely no desire to do so again. Over those ten years I have explained time after time that God did not punish the Lord Jesus; He had done nothing worthy of punishment. God punished us for our sin in Him (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24) Therefore it is no surprise that the Church Fathers do not mention it. However, Penal Substitution is found in many places in the Church Fathers' works as I have shown many times.
Now, this is a very solid, Reformed Baptist who stated this. I've always thought that God the Father did indeed punish the Son on our behalf. What are your thoughts about this?

Is the problem simply that this person thinks that the word 'punish' means 'cause suffering because of something you personally deserve'? They are trying to say the right thing - that Christ suffered in our place, bearing our guilt - but because they have added a connotation to the word 'punish' that is inappropriate, they find that saying 'God punished Christ' is blasphemous? And the result is that, intending orthodoxy, they are saying something that, taken at its literal value, is heterodox?

i.e. Theology depends on using language well; this person, probably with good intentions, doesn't use language well, ergo their theology is bad.

 

[Herald]

A Brother on another forum posted this:




Now, this is a very solid, Reformed Baptist who stated this. I've always thought that God the Father did indeed punish the Son on our behalf. What are your thoughts about this?

If the author of this quote is who I think it is, he has been railing against penal substitution for years. Nothing new here.

 

[JvMill]

Seems like an over-realized idea of union or something

 

[bdavidc]

A Brother on another forum posted this:




Now, this is a very solid, Reformed Baptist who stated this. I've always thought that God the Father did indeed punish the Son on our behalf. What are your thoughts about this?

According to Scripture alone, the idea that God did not pour out His wrath on Jesus is a direct contradiction of what the Bible teaches. Isaiah 53:6 says clearly, “The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” and Isaiah 53:10 adds, “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him, he hath put him to grief.” These verses declare that it was God's will for the suffering of Christ to take place, not as an accident, but as a substitutionary act of judgment. 1 Peter 2:24 states, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” which means Jesus bore the punishment due to us, and that punishment was God's righteous wrath against sin. Romans 8:3 confirms this truth by saying that God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” The sinless Christ was not punished for His own wrongdoing, because He had none (Hebrews 4:15), but He stood in the place of sinners and bore their punishment. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin,” and that is not a metaphor. It is a clear statement that the wrath of God due to sin was satisfied through Christ’s suffering. The cross was not just about suffering; it was about substitution, and without God's wrath being poured out on the substitute, there is no atonement. Penal substitution is not based on church fathers, it is grounded in the unchanging Word of God.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

If the author of this quote is who I think it is, he has been railing against penal substitution for years. Nothing new here.

Not him.

 

[No Other Name]

Not him.

Maybe influenced by him?

 

[mpinckard]

If the author of this quote is who I think it is, he has been railing against penal substitution for years. Nothing new here.

Maybe influenced by him?

As others have notes, the author of the quotation in the OP seems to actually support penal substitution (based upon the last sentence about the Fathers), albeit a rather strange version of it.

I agree with those who want to read this charitably--I think the author is trying to make a valid point, but his language is very problematic and contradicts a number of plain statements of Scripture, and undercuts the Bible's teaching on double imputation. It's obviously true that Christ did nothing worthy of punishment. But it's also true that God was pleased to make him who knew no sin to be sin for us and for our salvation, that we might become the righteousness of God. If Paul can speak of Christ's being made sin, then how can it be improper to speak of Christ's being punished for sin, so long as we ever remain clear that the sins for which he was punished were not his own?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Maybe influenced by him?

No. That Brother has been a YUGE defender of PSA on that site, and that’s left me scratching my head.

 

[Knight]

No. That Brother has been a YUGE defender of PSA on that site, and that’s left me scratching my head.

Why don't you just ask what he meant?

 

[Polanus1561]

sorry what’s the final end point of this thread? we all agree on PSA... and?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

sorry what’s the final end point of this thread? we all agree on PSA... and?

Somehow, at least to me, that quote in the OP in some way torpedoes PSA. It just doesn't seem to jive with it. And I was asking to settle things in my mind if my view of PSA was the correct view.

 

[Pictet]

Why don't you just ask what he meant?

Presumably the whole point of this discussion is that this person is either 1) unable to say clearly what they mean, due to inadequate training/understanding or 2) unwilling to say clearly what they mean, because they want to obscure how problematic their views are. They have been asked, and gave an answer which is frankly nonsensical...

 

[bdavidc]

Somehow, at least to me, that quote in the OP in some way torpedoes PSA. It just doesn't seem to jive with it. And I was asking to settle things in my mind if my view of PSA was the correct view.

I understand that the quote you read may have raised doubts about Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), but it’s important to test every idea against the Scriptures, not feelings or external opinions. According to the Bible, PSA is not a human invention, it is central to the Gospel message. The entire Bible reveals a holy God who must punish sin, and a merciful God who provided a substitute.

Start with Isaiah 53:5–6, which speaks prophetically of Christ: “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... the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” This is clear substitution, Jesus took what we deserved. It was our sin, not His.

Romans 3:25–26 confirms this, saying that God presented Jesus “as a propitiation through faith in his blood” to demonstrate His righteousness. Propitiation means a wrath-satisfying sacrifice. God did not overlook sin, He poured His wrath on His Son, so that justice would be fulfilled and mercy could be extended to us.

2 Corinthians 5:21 declares, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Jesus was not just a moral example, He was our substitute, absorbing the penalty we deserved. That is the “penal” part, the punishment for sin. That is the “substitution,” Jesus took our place.

The Gospel without substitution is powerless. Galatians 3:13 says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” He was cursed in our place. That’s not figurative, that’s literal justice and mercy meeting at the cross.

Some quotes, especially modern theological or emotional objections, may try to paint PSA as unfair or unloving, but Romans 5:8 silences that, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The cross was not divine cruelty, it was divine love in action. And Jesus said in John 10:18, “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.” It was voluntary, not forced.

If you're questioning whether your understanding of PSA is correct, measure it against the verses above. PSA is not one of many options, it is the heart of the Gospel. Without it, there is no salvation. 1 Peter 2:24 says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” so that we could be healed. That's substitution. That’s the Gospel.

 

[RamistThomist]

Is the guy in question well-known or just an internet guy? I feel like that would provide a lot of context.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I understand that the quote you read may have raised doubts about Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), but it’s important to test every idea against the Scriptures, not feelings or external opinions. According to the Bible, PSA is not a human invention, it is central to the Gospel message. The entire Bible reveals a holy God who must punish sin, and a merciful God who provided a substitute.

Start with Isaiah 53:5–6, which speaks prophetically of Christ: “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... the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” This is clear substitution, Jesus took what we deserved. It was our sin, not His.

Romans 3:25–26 confirms this, saying that God presented Jesus “as a propitiation through faith in his blood” to demonstrate His righteousness. Propitiation means a wrath-satisfying sacrifice. God did not overlook sin, He poured His wrath on His Son, so that justice would be fulfilled and mercy could be extended to us.

2 Corinthians 5:21 declares, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Jesus was not just a moral example, He was our substitute, absorbing the penalty we deserved. That is the “penal” part, the punishment for sin. That is the “substitution,” Jesus took our place.

The Gospel without substitution is powerless. Galatians 3:13 says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” He was cursed in our place. That’s not figurative, that’s literal justice and mercy meeting at the cross.

Some quotes, especially modern theological or emotional objections, may try to paint PSA as unfair or unloving, but Romans 5:8 silences that, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The cross was not divine cruelty, it was divine love in action. And Jesus said in John 10:18, “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.” It was voluntary, not forced.

If you're questioning whether your understanding of PSA is correct, measure it against the verses above. PSA is not one of many options, it is the heart of the Gospel. Without it, there is no salvation. 1 Peter 2:24 says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” so that we could be healed. That's substitution. That’s the Gospel.

Oh, I agree 100% with PSA. He was punished for our sins.
[automerge]1746745970[/automerge]

Is the guy in question well-known or just an internet guy? I feel like that would provide a lot of context.

He’s an Internet guy who I’ve talked with over the internet for years. He’s always been rock solid in his theology, that’s why when he said that, I was wondering if my view was wrong. As others have expressed, we need to examine everything we see, and believe, through the lens of scripture.