Penal Substitution Reprised

Perhaps if you'd review the Scriptures . . .

 

ALL Psalm 22 is a statement of the thoughts of Christ on the Cross.

And not a single statement of the "wrath of God poured out upon Him."

Martin,

Certainly Christ suffered. THAT is not what is in question.

What IS the issue?

Was that suffering "payment" for sin, when the Scriptures state that it is the "blood shed?"

And, was that suffering the "wrath of God" when the Scriptures do not indicate it as such?

Such verses as "the Lord has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all" do not translate into the suffering being payment. It is that gift God gave to the Son to carry. Such gift that none of earthly might could bear.

Much earlier, I shared that each wound, each bruise, each point of suffering was blood letting. Both that seen externally, and also that the internal damage that was historically significant when one was interrogated. That blood is what was the satisfaction.

Were before, Christ escaped the vile hand of man, from the garden (symbol of Eden) He humbled Himself and allowed the viciousness. He allowed such that the blood be sprinkled from the garden, through the temple, to the magistrate, and even to be taken outside the gate. Such signifying the sin from Adam through all history is carried by the Christ.

Do not think that such suffering is expressed as the wrath of God as a RESULT of the taking on of sin, for GOD (according to Isaiah) is the one laid the iniquity upon the Son.

Why would God punish His Son for doing what He wanted Him to do, and in fact actually placing the iniquity upon the Son?

Paul stated:

"...10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."
​

That same suffering Christ bore, Paul said he was not willing to escape, either, because it was a point of fellowship.

The suffering of the Cross brought fellowship, it brought reconciliation, it brought healing, it brought peace. It did not bring vengeance.

"It PLEASED ...." not God poured out His wrath upon the Son.

 

Yes, Colossians 1:13, Romans 6:3, and 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Ask yourself, am I in Christ. If your answer is yes, then it was God who put you there, 1 Corinthians 1:30.

As far as the "two step process" if the reconciliation had occurred when Christ died on the cross, then we would not have the ministry of reconciliation, it would be a done deal. What is found nowhere in any bible is the conflated doctrine of Reformed Atonement.

 

First, we see the claim of Agedman being able to mind read, and then we see the first false claim.

1) All sins were not forgiven as a result of Christ becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Only the sins are forgiven of those God transfers into Christ, where they undergo the circumcision of Christ. Any other view is false and unbiblical.

2) All sins were forgiven for every individual God transfers into Christ, but none of the sins were forgiven for every individual not transferred into Christ.

 

Yes, Martin.


Just as all words, "enkataleipo" may actually mean walk away and never see again.

HOWEVER, throughout the Scriptures, the word is most often used in the sense of leaving along, or leave helpless, of leaving one unsustainable.

For ease of readers, here is what "Bible hub" shows for Strongs: left in a condition of lack ("without"); hence, to feel forsaken (helpless), like left in dire circumstances. (Strong's Greek: 1459. ἐγκαταλείπω (egkataleipó) -- to leave behind, i.e. (in a good sense) let remain over or (in a bad sense) desert)

Again, that does not mean that both the Hebrew and the Greek cannot carry the term to mean "discard," rather, it just is NOT the most typically considered accurate (imo).

As with nearly every case, the word definitions must fit into what is presented.

There is not (imo) a place to be found in which the Scriptures showing events related to the crucifixion (Numbers, Leviticus, Isaiah, Gospels, Revelations...) that place the events as even being a hint that the violence was the "wrath of God," or that God discarded or even disregarded His Son.

Such thinking is just not found in Scriptures.

Just the opposite are evidenced.

There are indications that pleasure, rejoicing, honor, glory, are what was actually taking place.

 

Van, why did you think I mind read?

I quoted YOU.

I showed how back to back your own actually posted sentences that when read oppose each other.

Of course, you went even further, you rephrased your statement with out admitting your error.

 

Agedman this thread is not about your mind reading claims, or your false misrepresentations.

Please address the topic.

 

Van,

I take time to actually quote YOU. To actually show by YOUR own posts, the actual things YOU write, the error(s).

Perhaps you can find a posts sometime, somewhere, where this is actually true to what I have posted? Perhaps, in all the thousands of posts I have made, you can find an error

I doubt it.

But so no reader is mistakenly assuming Van is truthfully reflecting upon what I view as Scriptural, I will again restate.

Christ's blood was shed for all humanity, without regard to station, class, race, creed, belief, unbelief, ... Not a single drop was reserved, and held back until one is "transferred into Christ."

Christ was ONCE offered. Not multiple times as the need occurs, or that the blood is held in some supply room, perhaps in buckets, and when a person is "transferred into Christ" a sprinkling of that blood is applied.

Sin(s) is not what determines the final estate of any individual.

That resides in the sole condition of the soul. BELIEF.

All who believe are saved, redeemed, "in Christ," sanctified by Him, ...

All who do not believe are "condemned already."

 

As if YOU addressed the topic attacking my veracity!

Why is it that when YOU are quoted, that one uses YOUR own words, that YOU claim they misrepresent you?

 

God was NOT though executing His wrath and punishment upon someone who was NOT willing to take them in order to atone for lost sinners! jesus was willing to become as it were sin for our behalf, so that the father was seeing Jesus while upon the Cross in a sense of Him becoming sin in our place, in order to propitiate the wrath of God directed towards sins and sinners!