Confusion on just what is PSA

[agedman]

Yes, but still do not see why you changed your mind!

Because it would seem he became more enamoured wth Scripture truth and understanding that more often “theories” are prejudiced by events, politics, prophetic view, and hindrance of the Holy Spirit.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with true investigation of these matters and allowing the Scriptures to be ascendant in the process of changing ones view and mind.

 

[JonC]

Yes, but still do not see why you changed your mind!

I don't hold to either of their views. I never really held the Calvinistic version of PSA, but at one time I did take for granted that God punished (simple, retributive punishment) for the sins I had committed. I think this is because I viewed every action as a kind of "stripe" inflicted (or burden placed upon) Christ. The reason I left that view was that as I matured I leaned more on Scripture and less on tradition (less on what I had been taught as a child).

I am glad that you understand the differences here (between traditional Calvinism and the more moderate/ between Luther and Calvin) regarding PSA. Which do you hold as correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't hold to either of their views. I never really held the Calvinistic version of PSA, but at one time I did take for granted that God punished (simple, retributive punishment) for the sins I had committed. I think this is because I viewed every action as a kind of "stripe" inflicted (or burden placed upon) Christ. The reason I left that view was that as I matured I leaned more on Scripture and less on tradition (less on what I had been taught as a child).

I am glad that you understand the differences here (between traditional Calvinism and the more moderate/ between Luther and Calvin) regarding PSA. Which do you hold as correct?

God wrath is towards sins that have happened, as breaking of His law demands punishment correct?

 

[agedman]

God wrath is towards sins that have happened, as breaking of His law demands punishment correct?

I thought you posted that Christ suffered the wrath of God. Does current sinners not enjoy the results of the resolve?

Are you posting that the suffering of Christ was insufficient to resolve all sins, past, present, and future?

Or are you posting that only partial sins are resolved?

Can you find a Scripture that states that Christ’s suffering resolved the sin issue?

 

[Yeshua1]

I thought you posted that Christ suffered the wrath of God. Does current sinners not enjoy the results of the resolve?

Are you posting that the suffering of Christ was insufficient to resolve all sins, past, present, and future?

Or are you posting that only partial sins are resolved?

Can you find a Scripture that states that Christ’s suffering resolved the sin issue?

No, the death of jesus was for ALL sins ever committed, but only for the elect, as only they are effectual applied that coverage and grace!

 

[agedman]

No, the death of jesus was for ALL sins ever committed, but only for the elect, as only they are effectual applied that coverage and grace!

And you cannot find Scripture for this thinking?

Seems to me that the Scriptures state that the blood was shed for the sins, that death is the wages of sin(s), and that the resurrection is a display of victory over both sin and death.

 

[JonC]

God wrath is towards sins that have happened, as breaking of His law demands punishment correct?

My question was (is), since you say you understand the difference, which view of Substitutionary Atonement do you hold - Martin Luther's view or John Calvin's view?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was asking you if you understood what separated Luther's view from the view Calvin held (what I call PSA). Do you?

I know that they both believed that Christ was made a curse for us, and neither of them believed that it was the elves or the pixies who made Him a curse. Clearly there are differences. Luther was a Lutheran and Calvin.....wasn't.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

However, in the whole of the crucifixion, from the garden to the resurrection, there was not wrath of or from God, but His will and the pleasure of that will realized.

Once more.
Psalm 7:11. 'God is angry with sinners every day.'
2 Corinthians 5:21. ' God made [Christ] to be sin for us.'
Therefore
God's judicial anger (wrath) against sin was poured out upon Christ on the cross so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. This does not mean that God hated Christ or anything silly like that. His wrath was not against Christ but against sin and came upon Christ as the sin-bearer.

Punishment does not nor is it found in Scripture to be a remittance of sin.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Punishment for sin is all over the OT. Also read Revelation 15 & 16.

If punishment had such ability, the Lake of Fire would not be eternal, but would empty. Such is the thinking of the RCC and Mormons.

Punishment for sinners outside of Christ is eternal. Christ's sufferings on the cross were deemed by the Father to be sufficient to atone for the sins of all believers. At the 9th hour, the sun re-appeared and our Lord cried out, "It is finished!" And it was.

The blood shed is the remittance for all sin.

We've covered this before. The blood stands for the death. In the Lord's supper we commemorate the broken body as well as the shed blood.

 

[JonC]

I know that they both believed that Christ was made a curse for us, and neither of them believed that it was the elves or the pixies who made Him a curse. Clearly there are differences. Luther was a Lutheran and Calvin.....wasn't.

I did not know that there were Christians who denied that Christ was made a curse for us. I suspect this is a "strawman" argument (arguing against a nonexistent foe so as to appear victorious when in fact the opposition is merely pixies of one's own imagination). I typically refer to this as "fighting windmills" as Don Quixote was prone to combating such non-existent dragons.

Yes, there are differences between Luther and Calvin. We can see some of these differences in Calvin's defense of his own position, and of course in Luther's articulation of his. But the point here was to highlight the fact that these differences are often not discerned by those who hold PSA (as evidenced by the fact the Baptists in the article were blinded to the difference the traditional Calvinists so readily noticed).

I didn't mean it negatively towards Luther or Calvin. While I appreciate both (though I enjoy and learn more from Calvin's writings than Luther) I also believe both wrong. I was just surprised that some here seemed not to see the difference between Luther's position and PSA.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Luther seemed to understand Calvary in a way that you now do not!
Martin Luther on Atonement and Penal Substitution - Guard the Deposit

Thanks for this, Y1. Very helpful!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I did not know that there were Christians who denied that Christ was made a curse for us.

What you do not answer is who made Him a curse.

 

[agedman]

Once more.
Psalm 7:11. 'God is angry with sinners every day.'
2 Corinthians 5:21. ' God made [Christ] to be sin for us.'
Therefore
God's judicial anger (wrath) against sin was poured out upon Christ on the cross so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. This does not mean that God hated Christ or anything silly like that. His wrath was not against Christ but against sin and came upon Christ as the sin-bearer.

There is a fundamental difference between being a sinner and being made sin.

Because you blend these as one, you attend to the crucifixion from that perspective.

However, such is not the presentation of Scripture.

Christ made sin never became a sinner.

Therefore, the wrath of God you desire to be poured out upon God is non-existent.

Perhaps you can definitively show Christ sinned? Lusted, had pride of life. Where these not the matters of temptation He faced in the wilderness?

Then God could pour out wrath upon Himself

Not quite sure what you mean here. Punishment for sin is all over the OT. Also read Revelation 15 & 16.

Certainly. Never stated otherwise.

However, punishment was never a resolve for sin, but a tool of instruction of righteousness.

There is only one resolve for the sin issue.

Blood

Not punishment

If it were punishment then the RCC and Mormons are correct with their view as “hell” being a temporary place where purging of sin resolved the matter of being reconciled.

Punishment for sinners outside of Christ is eternal. Christ's sufferings on the cross were deemed by the Father to be sufficient to atone for the sins of all believers. At the 9th hour, the sun re-appeared and our Lord cried out, "It is finished!" And it was.

No disagreement.

We've covered this before. The blood stands for the death. In the Lord's supper we commemorate the broken body as well as the shed blood.

Not true.

Christ did NOT bleed to death.

He bled in the garden (symbolic of Eden), He bled in the temple (symbolic of religious authority), He bleed in the palace (symbolic of judicial/governmental authority), He bled befor the people as he stumbled in the streets (symbolic of common/economic authority) and He bled on the cross as His wounds were reopened each time He lifted Himself up to exhale (symbolic of the reconciliation authority of God to man).

Christ “gave up the Spirit” on purpose, it was not taken from Him

And Yes, I covered this before.

Without the blood, the death would have no effect. The resurrection would have been no better then any other raised from death.

With out the blood shed, (from garden to tree) there would be no forgiveness of sin.

 

[JonC]

What you do not answer is who made Him a curse.

That's because I am insistent on sticking to Scripture here. I know you believe God cursed Jesus, but I see no difference between your reasoning and the reasoning of Origen - who's doctrine would demand I identify just who God paid the ransom to (since a ransom paid to oneself is no ransom at all).

Scripture does not need our help, brother. Christ became a curse for us. Christ was found in the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus Himself submitted in obedience to the Father, humbled Himself and became man. Christ was made a curse for us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That's because I am insistent on sticking to Scripture here. I know you believe God cursed Jesus, but I see no difference between your reasoning and the reasoning of Origen - who's doctrine would demand I identify just who God paid the ransom to (since a ransom paid to oneself is no ransom at all).

Scripture does not need our help, brother. Christ became a curse for us. Christ was found in the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus Himself submitted in obedience to the Father, humbled Himself and became man. Christ was made a curse for us.

So it was the fairies and the pixies after all.
Fortunately, I am able to help you out here. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' 'For He who is hanged is cursed by God.' When we speak of 'the LORD' and of 'God' we obviously mean the Triune God which includes the Lord Jesus. You spoke in your post #39 of a 'covenantal righteousness.' You did not elaborate, but I certainly see Penal Substitution as being covenantal. P.S. has its origin in the Everlasting Covenant (or 'council of Redemption') before the beginning of time. 'And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined' (Luke 22:22). Determined when and by whom if not by the Triune God in the Everlasting Covenant? The Lord Jesus willingly came in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to became sin and a curse for us, and suffered the wrath of God towards sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is a fundamental difference between being a sinner and being made sin.

Absolutely! Christ was made sin for us but He never became a sinner.

Because you blend these as one, you attend to the crucifixion from that perspective.

I don't and I don't

Therefore, the wrath of God you desire to be poured out upon God is non-existent.

I don't think you'll find it is. It may help you to read my post #75

Perhaps you can definitively show Christ sinned? Lusted, had pride of life. Where these not the matters of temptation He faced in the wilderness?

Just to be absolutely clear: the Lord Jesus never sinned. Perhaps you would like to show me where I have ever said that He did?

However, punishment was never a resolve for sin, but a tool of instruction of righteousness.

1 Thessalonians 1:9. 'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.'

There is only one resolve for the sin issue.
Blood
Not punishment
.

Please read Matthew 20:17-19. If the shedding of blood and not punishment were the issue, why did the Lord Jesus have to suffer such terrible things?

 

[JonC]

So it was the fairies and the pixies after all.
Fortunately, I am able to help you out here. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' 'For He who is hanged is cursed by God.' When we speak of 'the LORD' and of 'God' we obviously mean the Triune God which includes the Lord Jesus. You spoke in your post #39 of a 'covenantal righteousness.' You did not elaborate, but I certainly see Penal Substitution as being covenantal. P.S. has its origin in the Everlasting Covenant (or 'council of Redemption') before the beginning of time. 'And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined' (Luke 22:22). Determined when and by whom if not by the Triune God in the Everlasting Covenant? The Lord Jesus willingly came in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to became sin and a curse for us, and suffered the wrath of God towards sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Yes, we already covered this (so many times I've got it memorized ).

Isaiah 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

Or, as I noted before:

Acts 2:22-24 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power."

A wise man once said - "it's not 'it is written', but 'it is written again'" that gives us our doctrine. I am just suggesting that it is possible to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture rather than what we see "implied" in Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, we already covered this (so many times I've got it memorized ).

Isaiah 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

Or, as I noted before:

Acts 2:22-24 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power."

A wise man once said - "it's not 'it is written', but 'it is written again'" that gives us our doctrine. I am just suggesting that it is possible to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture rather than what we see "implied" in Scripture.

We can certainly agree that both those texts are in the Bible. And what teaching do you draw from them and why do you think they are an answer to my post #75?

 

[JonC]

We can certainly agree that both those texts are in the Bible. And what teaching do you draw from them and why do you think they are an answer to my post #75?

Christ was made a curse for us, that it was God's predetermined plan that he suffer and die at the hands of godless men. In context of the passage, it was the will of the Father.

The teaching that I draw from the passage is that it was the will of the Father - His predetermined plan - that Christ become flesh - become a curse for us - and suffer and die at the hands of godless men.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for this, Y1. Very helpful!

While it is true that Luther saw it in a fashion like Jon C does now, he also saw it same as calvin, as Jesus in our place suffering same way at hand of God as we all would have!