-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Penal Substitution and the Trinity
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
You do this every time you are losing a debate. You claim that you are arguing from Scripture and your opponents are following 'tradition.' It's a cheap shot and a lot easier than arguing from Scripture. That is why you are unsuitable to be a moderator
You would not accept that from me. You would demand Scripture and accuse me of following tradition. God set the Lord Jesus forth as a propitiation to demonstrate His righteousness. That is Scripture (Romans 3:26 if you're not sure). John 3:16 makes no reference to the cross. God loved the world in that He sent His Son into it to be the propitiation for our sins ( 1John 4:10. But He shows His righteousness at the cross and His hatred of sin.
The evidence of course is that you have turned your ears away from the truth and have been turned aside to fables (2 Timothy 4:4). Now are we going to stop insulting each other or shall we carry on? And yes, Christ is the sacrifice that turns away wrath.
You're problem seems to be that you don't understand what you are doing. You are calling other people's posts 'tradition' while at the same time telling us that you have followed Scripture. You know nothing about me; you don't know what my 'traditions' are and it is just a nasty, cheap rhetorical trick and you need to stop doing it. It is very easy to answer back in the same way and, to my shame, I have done so on various occasions. But we should be able to rise above such things. You have been banned from at least one Christian forum for making yourself obnoxious. You should have learned your lesson by now.
PLEASE STOP! We can't put a moderator on 'ignore.'
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.
Are you really so dense? Do you not understand that it is your use of the word 'tradition' that is offensive? And are you not aware that you tend only to trot the word out when you're losing debates?
Well, it's worked again. We discussing 'tradition' instead of the Scriptures.
I do not come from a Reformed tradition. That is completely incorrect. Please stop saying that I do.
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.
Hmm... I've been gone a long time but it seems, at least to me, there is a question that needs to be addressed. If Christ Jesus knew no sin and therefore was righteous, and if sin (just a single sin) separates us from God due to His Justness and Holiness - What does that mean when the scriptures state "... He was made sin, who knew no sin..."
I'll try to be brief but I an not very good at brevity.
I do not disagree it was the love of God that set forth The Sacrifice for the propitiation for His people. But I also must acknowledge that the sacrifice is specific to the law of God where by justice must be satisfied against both the transgression and the transgressor. This speaks directly to the justice and holiness of God in which the punishment against sin (the action) and the one who committed it, must be carried out and that, without mercy. (Heb 10:28) Don't know about you gentlemen but 'without mercy' means the judgement of God and that without mixture as spoke of in the book of The Revelation. We call that wrath!
If scripture is true (and we agree it is) then when Christ was 'made sin' or became sin, - then what does this speak to regarding His righteousness. He did not become a sinner but became the very embodiment of sin and the substitute/replacement for those who do them, and therefore (in that place) must be judged by the Law of God. When God gives the eternal judgement on sin, it is a judgement that lasts without end - as stated, eternal. When God judged Christ as sin, the law was fulfilled and God was satisfied both with the requirements of the Law, and the sacrifice. It pleased God to crush Christ, for the sake of Law (His righteousness, Justice, and Holiness) - yet - also for us (His love, mercy, and grace).
It cannot be denied, in my opinion, Penal Substitution unless we take away the law and the requirements and reasons therein. For if Christ "...'became' or 'was made' sin for us..." this must be dealt with, and it cannot be done so without the Penal Substitution.
I'll try to be brief but I an not very good at brevity.
I do not disagree it was the love of God that set forth The Sacrifice for the propitiation for His people. But I also must acknowledge that the sacrifice is specific to the law of God where by justice must be satisfied against both the transgression and the transgressor. This speaks directly to the justice and holiness of God in which the punishment against sin (the action) and the one who committed it, must be carried out and that, without mercy. (Heb 10:28) Don't know about you gentlemen but 'without mercy' means the judgement of God and that without mixture as spoke of in the book of The Revelation. We call that wrath!
If scripture is true (and we agree it is) then when Christ was 'made sin' or became sin, - then what does this speak to regarding His righteousness. He did not become a sinner but became the very embodiment of sin and the substitute/replacement for those who do them, and therefore (in that place) must be judged by the Law of God. When God gives the eternal judgement on sin, it is a judgement that lasts without end - as stated, eternal. When God judged Christ as sin, the law was fulfilled and God was satisfied both with the requirements of the Law, and the sacrifice. It pleased God to crush Christ, for the sake of Law (His righteousness, Justice, and Holiness) - yet - also for us (His love, mercy, and grace).
It cannot be denied, in my opinion, Penal Substitution unless we take away the law and the requirements and reasons therein. For if Christ "...'became' or 'was made' sin for us..." this must be dealt with, and it cannot be done so without the Penal Substitution.
Last edited:
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.
OK.. so question - In looking at the historical understanding of the sin offering, once the hand of transgressor is laid upon the head of the animal... does it become the very embodiment of the sin of the nation/person? Is it still the pure and innocent animal?
If so, then it cannot be killed to appease the law for it is innocent and without blemish. The sacrifice must become the substitute in that it not only takes the place, but also the sin so that justice can be carried out in holiness.
The problem still remains that the passage "...He became/was made sin..." must be dealt with and obviously in a contextual and consistent manner.
If so, then it cannot be killed to appease the law for it is innocent and without blemish. The sacrifice must become the substitute in that it not only takes the place, but also the sin so that justice can be carried out in holiness.
The problem still remains that the passage "...He became/was made sin..." must be dealt with and obviously in a contextual and consistent manner.
Last edited:
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.
True... The sins of the people were not covered by the laying of a hand on the animal. It was the full sacrificial picture forwarding to Christ that was acted upon in faith that brought forgiveness. Hmm.. no, sacrifice for personal sins did bring about forgiveness, the once a year atonement regarded the nation of Israel as a whole and while to some degree it dealt in the personal it was mainly national - but the same worked true with both sacrifices, personal and national, they had to be received by faith otherwise it did nothing to or for the individuals.
The only problem you have with the new idea 'concept' is that there is nothing in the text that prescribes us to consider the idea of a new idea since it is all referencing the old established references and meanings. It never tells us to see this as something different than what was already understood but works specifically what is known and affirms that concept and OT system in the work of Christ. If you can show the 'new idea' concept, we can definitely work from there...
And to your last part about "... providing a lamb..." we must go back to God established in the OT (this is what Christ fulfilled in direct accordance with the law) that was meant not only in the providing but how that providing accomplished the work of satisfying the law regarding sin and person offering it.
The only problem you have with the new idea 'concept' is that there is nothing in the text that prescribes us to consider the idea of a new idea since it is all referencing the old established references and meanings. It never tells us to see this as something different than what was already understood but works specifically what is known and affirms that concept and OT system in the work of Christ. If you can show the 'new idea' concept, we can definitely work from there...
And to your last part about "... providing a lamb..." we must go back to God established in the OT (this is what Christ fulfilled in direct accordance with the law) that was meant not only in the providing but how that providing accomplished the work of satisfying the law regarding sin and person offering it.
Hello Allan...hope all is well with you...
Yes. And yourself? I see no one has moved you from the Reformed position since I left huh? Well, I'm back now. HA HA! good to see/read you brother.
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.
- Status