Penal Substitution and the Trinity

Are you saying that by your comments you are in no way suggesting that my rejection of God being wrathful to Christ is unbiblical?

If so then why exceed biblical warrant by insisting Christ bore God's wrath?

If not, then how are you not being hypocritical (by complaining I view your theory as unbiblical while you have been arguing the same of mine)?

 

. I just picked up on what you were saying.

You misunderstood my reply.

You and @Martin Marprelate have both been arguing that my position is unbiblical. And I am arguing that yours is unbiblical. Hence the argument.

I was referring to the claim that holding views we consider not biblical as being "unbiblical" is somehow a "cheap shot", or inappropriate. That complaint is childish. We challenge each other because we (who affirm Sola Scriptura) believe an opposing view unbiblical.

Essentially you two are complaining because I disagree with you.

 

A point of clarification, to help those in need of aid:

Webster’s dictionary defines “unbiblical” as "contrary to or unsanctioned by the Bible". Its first known use was 1828.

On a debate board each side often views the opposing view as “unbiblical” (as unsanctioned by or contrary to Scripture). This is why we debate – we believe our view is biblical and the other view is unbiblical. My statements reflect my beliefs. I believe that the theory God was wrathful towards Christ is unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). I believe that the theory God looked upon Christ as if He were a sinner is unbiblical (contrary to Scripture).

My opponent would hold my view as unbiblical. And that's fine. It is to be expected – but you know what? I am man enough to handle such things.

If a person objects to having their theories and traditions challenged, or cannot handle having those who oppose their views refer to such ideas as “unbiblical”, then perhaps the fellowship section of the forum would be better suited to their temperament. No one wants to hurt people's feelings, but much too often it seems that someone gets their feelings hurt by something another has posted.

Look people, we don't know each other. There is no need to wear your feelings on your sleeve. There is no need to report every time someone does not agree with something you said, or they view your theory as foreign to Scripture. This is a debate forum. People are going to disagree with you, sometimes things can get heated, and if you cannot walk away without feeling injured or feeling a need to retaliate then this really is not the place for you - at least not while you are feeling that way.

We all get carried away at times and say things we shouldn't. But my goodness, some are starting to get out of hand sensitive and downright childish. Nothing here is that important. Don't give away your integrity to "win" an argument. If needed, simply walk away.

 

I must have misunderstood your argument. Are you now saying my position IS biblical or do you contend it is not? Or are both of our positions somehow biblical in a relative truth kind of way?

If you intended your repeated claim that I denied Scripture as an insult it didn't work. I expected us to disagree and I expect us to believe the other is ignoring what we plainly see.

I was not insulting you. I believe your tradition is unbiblical and I believe you have failed to prove via Scripture otherwise. And you believe the same of my position. We know this and have known this for over a year. Why so temperamental all of a sudden? You know this is a debate forum and we each hold the other's view as unbiblical. ..don't you?

 

We all have traditions. Either we grew up in them or we adopted them later in life. You come from a Reformed tradition, to include a Caslvinistic theology and a belief in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. There is no shame in that. But I believe your tradition unbiblical.

I come from an evangelical Baptist tradition, to include a belief in the Theory of Penal Substitution. I have left some of my past theology behind, but have adopted others. You believe no e unbiblical. And I am not ashamed of that either.

But I will make you a deal. Don't respond to me and I won't respond to you. Just like this post and we are G2G.

 

Thank you @Jerome

In light of these quotes, and in light of the fact that the 1689 confession is in the Reformed Tradition, I've deleted my post apologizing for what I mistook as Martin's honest reply to my honest misunderstanding. I believe an agenda is surfacing here, one we've seen before.

 

Charles Hodge states that this can mean one of two things – either he was made a sin-offering or he was made a sinner. Most of the older commentators have chosen “made a sin offering”, but Calvin and most of the moderns adopt the latter. (Hodge, 2 Corinthians, 120)

Thomas Schreiner states “Saying that Jesus was made to be sin either means that Jesus was counted as a sinner, even though he was sinless, or it means that Jesus became a sacrifice of sin for our sake.” (Schreiner, Faith Alone, 187)

I believe both are right - there are two possible interpretations (because Jesus could not have been literally made sin and continue to be God). It can be interpreted that Jesus was made a sin offering (a propitiation for sin) or was counted as a sinner. I believe the former correct because Scripture affirms over again that God offered Christ as a sin offering, that Christ lay down Himself as an offering for sin, etc.

 

Keep in mind that I can only tell you my understanding. But when you look at the OT sin offering the point is man's obedience in faith to God's command. The people sins of the people were not covered or forgiven simply by the laying of their hand on the animal. They were not forgiven when the offering was slain. They were forgiven when the priest made the atonement for them.

And yes, "He was made sin" is an issue of context. I think we need to ask ourselves if this is a new idea being introduced or if it is an appeal to what has been proclaimed throughout Scripture - that God would provide a Lamb.

 

This is also debatable. I was reading Schreiner's commentary and he cautioned about relying too much on the OT sacrificial system as it was but a shadow of the redemption that was to come.

That said, I can see it both ways. I think that the more biblical approach is to view God making Him sin who knew no sin to mean that God loved the world by giving His only Son, or by offering Him as a sin offering. But others disagree, and I can respect that. F. F. Bruce, for example, views this as God considering Christ as if he were a sinner - and Bruce is one of my favorite commentators. Calvin saw it this way as well (and if you've never read Calvin on prayer you are missing out).

But as Thomas Schreiner pointed out in the book I referenced before, while both interpretations are possible the point of the passage hinges on neither. The point is that Jesus bore our sins (whether as being put forth as a propitiation or as being actually considered as sinful) so that we would be made righteous in Christ.