Penal Substitution Reprised

IN the same way there are equally differing view as to what scripture says. For example you say scripture clearly says, not implies, there is a Trinity. I, and many people disagree with you that it is anything more than implication. There is no explicit scripture that says there is a Trinity. Our understanding of what is implied can be equally backed up with other scripture as can what you believe is implicit.

 

The doctrine of the Trinity

 

Perhaps, because some want some kind of statement such as, "the trinity" found in the Scriptures.

Some could imply just as well see the "seven spirits of God" as God as a Septet.

Is there then something the Scriptures imply but is not Scripture?

 

Penal Substitution

First, a definition: ‘The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin’ (Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach. IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6).

Yet another PSA/PST definition without specificity. Does "Instead of us" refers to only the elect, or to the whole world, all human kind?

Put another way, did Christ die as a ransom for all, or just for some? Was His substitutionary sacrifice a sin offering for all mankind, or for the specific sins of some of mankind.

Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation from God's wrath for the sins of the whole world. Anyone God transfers into Christ has their sin burden which is what God holds against them removed by the circumcision of Christ. Only when we are transferred into Christ are we made alive together with Christ, undergoing the washing of regeneration.

 

You will have to ask Jonc.

 

You are assuming:
1) All sins were not forgiven for all humanity by the blood shed.
You state, "Anyone God transfers into Christ has their sin burden which is what God holds against them removed by the circumcision of Christ."

2) All sins were forgiven for all humanity by the blood shed.
You state, "Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation from God's wrath for the sins of the whole world."

Which is it?

Either the blood was shed for all, or it was not shed for all.

Either people are condemned from the statement of unbelief, or they are condemned because their sin was unforgivable.

 

ok

 

That is not implicitly the Trinity.

Its not a difference

 

That misrepresents my position. What is written is not definitive. This is because the same thing can be understood in different ways between people. So it is not more secure in being an absolute than what is implied. Implication can be backed up by scripture just as anything else can and always comes from scripture.

Please be more careful of others position when you represent them.

 

I understand implications to establish principles to live by.

However, all doctrine should not rest upon what is implied, but what is actually stated.

Part of the Pharisees problem was this very issue. For example: They would attempt to rebuke for eating with unwashed hands, or working on the Sabath. Yet, missed the true application by dwelling in that implied

IFB legalism was based most often in such situations.

When it comes to this extremely important topic of atonement, implied isn’t enough.

The Scriptures and historical facts present far too clear of actual statements for much of any implied to be considered.

 

Ok, relating this statement to the thread:
Because some desire to imply God poured His Wrath upon the Son, irregardless of the clear statements of the events and even the thoughts of Christ showing there was no wrath, then there was wrath from God merely because some might think there was wrath from God?

Implications seem to make a weak foundation for doctrine.

 

The one dancing with paganism is you, but you didn't answer the question.

The victim was a substitute. It was "accepted for him." And that is directly from the Scripture.

 

What Scripture, Aaron?

Where is the Scripture placing victimization upon anyone?

Perhaps I need to review part of the thread.

 

I find this two-step process nowhere in my Bible. Maybe you could supply chapter and verse for this "transfer".

 

Lol. That's what substitute means.