Featured The just and the justifier

But that is not what those passages say. Those "in Christ" are not called "wicked" any more than God could have considered Christ as a sinner.

 

No. It wasn't God who considered Christ a curse. He became a curse for us (hanging on a tree did not make someone cursed, read the OT reference).

I am applying no heat, so if you feel any don't look my way.

I really think that if you would just be content with the plain teachings of Scripture you'd abandon the extra-biblical Theory upon which you now cling. I understand your logic, but you need to understand the Theory is not in the Bible.

 

Yes. No one has denied those points (unless you are saying Christ was made literal sin...i.e., God made Christ unholy, unrighteous, rebellious, evil...which I assume is not the case). Christ has too holy eyes to look upon sin.

 

I know it isn't....that's what I've been saying - penal substitution - yes....Penal Substitution Theory - no.

 

No. It means he was made "sinful flesh", "bore our sins". We can't pick a definition that denies other passages just because it suits Penal Substitution Theory.

And you never did answer the question -

Was Christ's sacrifice, apart from bearing God's wrath, a price worth enough to redeem mankind?

 

You still have the same problem. The verse cannot mean that God literally made Jesus to be sin. Even your conclusion (that God considered Jesus to be sinful) does not take the verse literally.

So agreeing that God did not literally make Jesus evil, unholy, unrighteous, sin....the problem you have is that your version (your altering of the literal word "sin") denies the nature of God as presented in the Bible. It makes God a liar. It denies Scripture. So even here you have to choose another meaning.

Scripture does not say that Jesus was imputed our sin. You are relying (again) on your theory to interpret Scripture. Our iniquity was laid upon Him. He propitiated our sin. He bore our sin. But he was not considered by God a sinner (at least per Scripture, I know your theory holds otherwise).

Me too. I'm good with what the Bible says of penal substitution. I'm not good with the theory that God was wrathful to Jesus (I find the theory demeaning to God, exalting to man above man's station, and unbiblical).

Now that you have studied the passage in Deuteronomy, do you realize your error? It is not saying that by hanging on a tree one is cursed (it is not a magic incantation or spell to cause someone to be cursed by God).

Deuteronomy 21:22-23
22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Even your "proof" denies your theory. The Jews (not God) considered Jesus to be guilty and a blasphemer and they had Him crucified. But only because Jesus lay down His own life. He became a curse for us.

You would do well to pay closer attention to the context of passages, brother. Allow the plain words of Scripture to dictate your theology rather than reading your theories into individual verses.

I know, brother, that you cannot understand Scripture except through the theory you have chosen. I was once the same. I couldn't understand how others did not see the theory throughout. So please understand that I am not trying to be rude, or "generate heat". I would like for others who read the thread, who are able (perhaps less vested in the Theory) to see beyond the theoretical suppositions through which you read the Bible, to consider what is actually taught in Scripture. I want them to see the depth and richness of what has been taught and passed down through the majority of Church history as compared to the shallow and unbiblical "doctrine" we've inherited through the Reformation as contemporary churches have adopted theory and tossed off Scripture itself. I want them to ask why Christ lived, rather than looking at His birth and death as the only relevant milestones to our redemption. I want them to consider the passages your theory rejects. I want them to read the four Gospels as well as the Pauline epistles and develop their theology from the whole.

So you are not my target audience. I know you will never leave your theory. You're too invested. And I don't blame you at all. It was very difficult for me to examine the Theory against Scripture. But others, particularly the younger generations who have already noticed the fly in the ointment, may be more open to Scripture (what "is written" rather than applied).

 

If you could accept the plain words of Scripture you would find the dichotomy you present much less a mystery and much more the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What verse are you speaking of here? Let's look at it together.

Here's one (but it doesn't support your theory and has been one of the primary verses supporting Christus Victor for centuries):
Colossians 2:13-15 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

In this case, we are forgiven our transgressions, the debt (the decrees against us) being canceled. It isn't a "sin debt" as you've imagined - but the word "debt" is used in the NASB.