The Immorality of "Letting" an Innocent Person Take Your Punishment

I have been having an interesting conversation with two non-Christians on the subject of the doctrine of Christ's substitutionary atonement. It began when I responded to a comment by blogger "Wait What."

Wait What...
...This is why religion has caused so much pain. You can see based on your morality which is directed by an authoritarian system can be easily used to justify horrible things, b/c your moral authority commands it, it no longer becomes wrong. Of course you don't see anything immoral/sinful about letting an innocent man suffer the punishment for your crimes, b/c that was commanded by your Authoritarian God. Letting the innocent person suffer on your behalf is now moral??? June 22, 2010 7:20 AM
(emphasis added)

Stranger...
Actually the plan of redemption was agreed upon by both the Father and the Son, from eternity. Our "letting" has nothing to do with it.
Your theology needed a bit of a tweaking there; thanks for letting me help you out. No charge, btw.
8:16 AM

Blogger, BeamStalk then joined in, agreeing that the whole concept of penal substitution is immoral. The following comment is sort of a recap, with my responses, of what was said previously:


WW: Again you make the case, based on the "merits" of Christ

SSL: Yep. Good theology, WW.

WW:  This is cheating

SSL: Oops. Bad theology, WW.

WW:  This is "I passed the test based on the merits of another individual."..

SSL:  Not exactly. Only Jesus passed the test. But we receive the benefits by virtue of his being our representative.

WW: That is immoral

SSL: By whose standard?

WW: In order for you to have salvation, it requires that an innocent person have been punished.

SSL: Yes, Because the justice of God requires, that the same human nature which has sinned should make satisfaction for sin; but no man, being himself a sinner, could satisfy for others. (Heidelberg Catechism Q.16)

WW: ... also immoral...

SSL: God, the source of morality, does not seem to agree with you.

WW: You believe these concepts are not found in Bible?

SSL: The concepts ARE found in the Bible, except the part about being immoral.

WW: You can call [salvation] a free gift as I said you can call it anything you want, but it is not. A free gift is something given with nothing in return.

SSL: "Nothing?" Does a feeling of gratitude and saying "Thank you," suddenly make it "not a free gift?" It is free because the giver was under no obligation to give it to you. Something like a paycheck, on the other hand, has been earned by the receiver.

WW: But you have to have faith and trust in Jesus as your risen savior in order to obtain this "Free" gift..

SSL: Faith/trust as well as repentance are fruits of regeneration (regeneration = born again).

WW: ...It's not really free if it requires something of you [faith and repentance] in order for you to receive/accept it.

SSL: Faith (trust, belief) is the means by which one receives the gift, but faith is not a work. It is a hearty trust that the Holy Spirit works in the heart of an individual by the gospel.

WW: In the end, it is inescapable that immorality plays a role in Christian salvation.

SSL: I agree, immorality does play a role in Christian salvation. We did the sinning; Christ did the saving.

Just like being sick plays a role in being cured. (No need to cure someone who is not sick.) Being enemies plays a role in reconciliation. (No need to reconcile those who are already friends.)

WW: I think you are just trying to think of it in a way that makes it seem more acceptable... but the reality is different. This is a man-made concept. Only humans would create a system such as this, where you allow the innocent to be punished rather than accept justice to be done to the guilty.

SSL: So, I am putting a spin on something "immoral" to make it seem like something "acceptable?" That is what you think I am trying to do?
WW, I am acutely aware of the fact that the Gospel and the way of salvation will never be "acceptable" to any man. Not until that man has an idea of 1. The awesome holiness and majesty of God, and 2. The depth of his own sinfulness whereby he has egregiously offended a holy God.

The world is filled with religions and philosophies that are created by man (or the devil: [Rev.12:15-17] ) that are designed to be acceptable to our fallen nature. God's way is different. The Law slays us. The Gospel humbles us.

You have misunderstood my intention, WW. What I tried to do in my last comment, as well as my reply to your initial comment, was to correct your mistaken belief about what the Bible, and the church in it's public confessions, teaches about how we are saved.

That, in fact, is the primary reason that I participate on Ray's blog: to try to accurately represent what God says in His Word and through His church about Christ and salvation. That is my agenda, and it is not a hidden one. June 30, 2010

As I said at the beginning of this post, blogger, BeamStalk was also part of this (over a week long, now) conversation. Yesterday, I asked him to clarify exactly what his position was, since he had been using Liberal Christianity's arguments to refute the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Here is his reply to me:

"Craig,
I have stated my position many times before. I am an agnostic atheist. Yes, I am using an evangelical, Norman McIlwain, from England to make my point about penal substitution.

I think the Bible does point to Penal Substitution and that it is a major foundation of modern Christianity. I also think it makes no sense and is immoral. The idea of punishing and killing an innocent to save the guilty is not justice but a perversion of justice. It is not moral, no one would ever accept this as a right action, but special pleading makes it okay within Christianity."
June 30, 2010 5:47 AM

I found it interesting that BeamStalk thinks that the Bible points to Penal Substitution (which our Reformed confessions also teach). I then replied to BeamStalk, thanking him for making his position clear to me.

This exchange of comments has been taking place for more than a week. To see the entire thread at Atheist Central click here. (You will see that we deviated from the original subject of the post, which was "Harmless Pedophilia.") Click: "show original post" then click "collapse comments." Then you can select individual comments by clicking the word "said" after the commenter's name.

HAS GOD BEEN OUTDONE BY HIS OWN CREATION?

"He's looking like a weak God right about now! Outdone by his own creation!"

This was said by an atheist commenting on Ray Comfort's blog, "Atheist Central." He was referring to scientists' synthesizing DNA and implanting it into a cell which had it's own DNA removed. Some say that in accomplishing this man has now "created life".

Another atheist who goes by the name, "Garbonzo Beans!!!" is very bold. He says: "This is the dawning of Homo evolutis. We will control our own genetic future, as well as the genetic future of other species. We can now create new species, that did not exist up until they were "intelligently designed"."

Others who commented on the blog post focused on the question of whether this really qualifies as "man creating life." I however was inspired to say something about the statement that God is weak, and has been outdone by his own creation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is the initial quote from "Blu," followed by my comment. The entire post and all comments can be seen by clicking here.

"Hey Ray, seen the news lately? We've been able to 'create' synthetic life. Seems we're almost as powerful as God ;) give it a few years, Ray, and we'll be creating our own life. God won't be so important then, will he. He's looking like a weak God right about now! Outdone by his own creation!" Blu

"He's looking like a weak God right about now! Outdone by his own creation!" Blu

Those words might well have been said 2,000 years ago when the long awaited "seed of the woman" (Gen.3:15) was killed and buried.

Satan must have been beyond euphoric when, after centuries of attempts to undermine the fulfillment of the Genesis 3 prophecy, God was defeated by His own creatures, the very human race He had planned to redeem from the devil's dominion. "Outdone by His own creation." Or, so it must have appeared.

I wonder though, if the "old serpent" may have been haunted the next couple of days by the thought, "That was easy - maybe too easy." His "victory" over God seemed to have been just handed to him on a silver platter.

The "deceiver" didn't have long to wait. John, in a very brief summary statement, says, "...and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God and to his throne." (Rev.12:4,5)

Look at the colon in that last sentence. It stands in the place representing the period of time when Jesus, the Son of God, as a man, lived a life of perfect obedience to his Father, and on the cross of shame achieved the ultimate victory over sin and death, and yes, over the devil.

Satan, not God, had been undone by his own scheme. What he didn't know was that God's "...Love is as strong as death, jealousy is fierce as the grave. It's flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the LORD." (Song of Songs 8:6) Never did he anticipate that God's love for his people was so strong that he would pay the ultimate price for their redemption. (John 3:16)

And as for Jesus, the Son of God, never has anyone paid such a great price to redeem and obtain a bride. Redeemed humanity will corporately be the eternal companion of Christ, in union with him for ever.

And they overcame [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. (Rev. 12:11)

Craig B.

The Value We put on Jesus.

This is an edited version of a post by Ray Comfort, yesterday on his "Atheist Central" blog. I have included my comment, following Ray's remarks. To see the post in it's entirety, click on the link provided above.

________________

From the Gospel of Luke, chapter two.

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. (Luke 2:16-19)

Ray Comfort's commentary (edited):

So, what’s all the fuss? This is just a baby in a cow’s feeding trough. Babies are born everyday in poverty. It’s no big deal. True, it’s not a big deal to those who have no understanding. ... [They] give no value to this babe in a manger. They mock that which is precious.

However, those who understand who this was, give it unspeakable value. This babe was God in human form--God "manifest in the flesh" for the express purpose of suffering for the sins of the world, so that the door of death could be closed for humanity and the door of immortally swung open wide. Think of it--if this was the promised Messiah, if Jesus of Nazareth was God in human form, if He did take our punishment, if He can give everlasting life to all who repent and trust in Him--what better news could you hope to ever hear! ...

_____________

My comment:

_By itself, this scene with the new-born baby in Bethlehem does not seem all that special.

But, illuminated from one side by the third chapter of Genesis (Key verse: 15), and from the other side by the twelfth chapter of Revelation (key verse: 5), we see the beginning of a thirty-three year period of time that is the key-stone in the structure of redemptive history.

God came to us in the person of Jesus Christ, and lived a perfect life as a genuine human being, body and soul.

He suffered and died on the cross for sinners.

He was buried, rose from the grave on the third day having overcome death for us.

Forty days later, He ascended to the "right hand of the Father" in heaven from where He now rules His kingdom (the church), and from where he will come again to judge the world.

This is that little baby in a dusty little village, who now holds in his hands the eternal destiny of each one of us.

Craig B

A Question About Repentance

On Ray Comfort's blog, "Atheist Central," someone asked for clarification about repentance. Here, I have re-posted his question, and my response.
              __________________________

Y = X said...

Hopefully one of the Christians on the site can clarify something for me. Ray quoted the Bible:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

Now, taken literally, which is the way the Bible is supposed to be read. It is the literal word of God and inerrant. This means I just need to believe in Jesus. It doesn't say anything about repentance.

Is this passage wrong? Is it just poorly worded?

These are genuine questions. I have heard Ray chastise those who say, "You need to believe in Jesus." He calls such people false converts but it appears that their belief is Biblically based.

March 12, 2010 7:31 AM
_________________________________________________________

stranger.strange.land said...

Hey, Y=X. How are you?

It is true that sometimes the Bible includes "repentance" in the call of the gospel:

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47)

...and sometimes it is omitted:

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
And they spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. (Acts 16:29-32)

Now look at John 3:16 with the preceding verses:

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:14-16)

If you look to Christ because you feel the sting of your guilt and sinfulness, as the Israelites looked at the brass serpent when they were feeling the sting of the serpents' bites which stemmed from their rebellion, your faith will be accompanied by repentance.
Now, if someone professes belief in Jesus but has not been convicted by the law of their sin and guilt, they believe in him for some other reason than to have their sin and guilt absolved.

True "faith in Jesus" and "the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18) always go together.

Clarified? Take care, my friend.

Craig

March 12, 2010 7:47 PM