Penal Substitution Reprised

I would ask the converse. How in the world you can read these texts and not come to the conclusion Christ experienced God's anger for our sakes. It's a no brainer.

Unless I'm missing a subtle nuance you're focused on.

 

Your major issue is that you don't understand how forgiveness works. Your secondary issue is that you don't understand the unity of the Trinity.

First, forgiveness is never free. It always costs. If I forgive you the $100 you owe me, it cost me $100. If you break my antique lamp, and I forgive you, it cost me either the value of replacement or the use and beauty of the lamp. If I don't make you pay me for the lamp, if I forgive you, I absorb the cost. That's what God does in forgiving men.

When God forgives men He absorbs the cost Himself. Salvation is a Trinitarian venture. God the Father, Son and Spirit have one will. The Father does not unjustly punish the innocent in Christ's death, the Godhead assumes/absorbs the cost. This isn't one member of the Trinity being unjust to another member of the Trinity. It's God forgiving men by absorbing the debt into Himself.

 

Penal substitutionary atonement is obvious to any reader of the text, but often people come to the text with an agenda, and they only see what they came looking for.

There is at least one a reason why someone would be opposed to the forgiveness of God through Christ's blood, and it has to do with the very nature of men: self-justification is the default mode of the (sinful) human heart.

 

The offerings for sin under the law. Why was a victim brought by the penitent?

 

You almost always give reasoned arguments even when I disagree with you. this statement quoted effects your credibility in a negative way as it makes your reasoning inferior. It is not necessary, it is inflammatory, and a cheap shot. Stick to well reasoned arguments.

 

If I take these words at face value I am forced to say you don't know what your talking about. Jesus expounded on scripture to even His disciples. It is a rather puzzling statement coming from you.

 

They got it from us. Just because pagans do it does not make it wrong, neither does it mean they are the original source of it. Further I would add that anytime in discussions you compare Christians or what they believe to "pagans" it will be inflammatory. Neither is it necessary.

 

The Mosaic law was not the beginning of sacrifices. Sorry for your misunderstanding.

 

Isn't that what JonC stated?

"ANE religions offered sacrifices long before the Mosaic Law came about. They did not get it from us."
​

Did I miss something?

 

In not one of your illustrations does it state that the letter writer, the debt payer, the life giver was rebuked by the recipient of the payment, much less was the letter or the writer angrily received.

NOT ONE has the just retribution of such payment that of rebuke and anger been the result, not even a hint of disgust. Rather, the recipient is pleased.

There are a lot of illustrations, many have been heard and used, that could sustain that which Christ did was on our behalf. But, none can show the recipient in any manner of displeasure and remain Scriptural.

Writing letters, making payment, ... is the NOT basis of the actual question.

What has not been shown as Scriptural is that the tortuous conditions and even the crucifixion were signs of God's wrath.

Again, Isaiah "It PLEASED..." So, where is wrath in being joyful, in agreement, in love?

If there is a single longer passage that expresses the events from the perspective of Christ it is found in Psalms 22.

Certainly, in that place in which the very thoughts of the Christ are revealed (for they were not spoken on the cross, with the exception of a single phrase).

So, certainly, in that place the Scriptures would reveal Christ's perspective that the Father "poured His wrath out upon the Son" in just retribution for making payment.

Perhaps you can use Psalms 22 as a foundation and show were the wrath from God is stated?

I have not found such.

Indeed, I have not found such in any passage of Scriptures!

That leads to the obvious conclusion.

There was NO wrath of God poured out upon the Son at ANYTIME.

 

The argument is NOT that from the garden the events were not tortuous.

The argument is NOT that from the garden the events were not forensic substitution.

What IS the argument is that at NO time (ANYtime) was God displeased, and "poured wrath out upon the Son."

Those that teach penal substitution atonement in such a manner are mistaken.

They are mixing retribution theory into penal substitution theory.

There is a place one can find retribution in the Scriptures.

Just not at the scenes concerning the crucifixion.

I posted that if there is a place that reveals the very thoughts of Christ while being crucified, it is Psalms 22. As He raised His body to exhale, He breathed out one short statement from the Psalm, and in order to understand that statement one MUST attend to the Psalm.

Therefore, if Christ considered it was the Father pouring wrath out upon Him, then it would be in the Psalm - somewhere - but it is not.

There is NO indication that can sustain that the Father poured out wrath upon His Son at the crucifixion or at anytime.

Therefore, such expressions concerning God's wrath poured out upon the Son by one teaching penal substitution theory are in error.