The Great Irony

[tyndale1946]

Jesus bore in Himself our due punishment, and thus paid for our sin debt!

That is true but we are still under the law!... Brother Glen

Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is true but we are still under the law!... Brother Glen

Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Yes, Paul is describing how even after he was saved, He had no strength in his flesh to live for God, had to learn to rely upon the Spirit Himself for that enabling!

 

[JonC]

Yes, Paul is describing how even after he was saved, He had no strength in his flesh

Paul should have had a Snickers.

 

[tyndale1946]

Paul should have had a Snickers.

Yeah and Festus called him on it too!... I'm only saying... Brother Glen

Acts 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Were the "stripes" Christ received "Punishment" or "Payment"?

They are spoken of as both in Scripture:
Isaiah 53:5 speaks of the punishment ('chastisement'). Other verses speak of our 'redemption' (e.g. 1 Peter 1:18-19).

 

[Yeshua1]

They are spoken of as both in Scripture:
Isaiah 53:5 speaks of the punishment ('chastisement'). Other verses speak of our 'redemption' (e.g. 1 Peter 1:18-19).

Which again seems to be better supported by the Pst view!

 

[Yeshua1]

Paul should have had a Snickers.

Or an Almond Joy" Sometime feel like a nut"

 

[tyndale1946]

Or an Almond Joy" Sometime feel like a nut"

You is what you eat!... Sometimes?... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Which again seems to be better supported by the Pst view!

That is actually subjective. The "Latin" view looks to the Atonement as paying a penalty for sin to satisfy the demands of justice. Augustine thought his ideas best. Anselm thought his theory best. Aquinas, his. And Calvin his. The "Classic" view looks to the Incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness in order to redeem it. Martyr thought his ideas the best suited Scripture. Irenaeus believed his best. Chrysostom his.


I understand that you believe your theory best supports Scripture. I would hope this obvious, as I believe mine best suited to Scripture.

 

[JonC]

You is what you eat!... Sometimes?... Brother Glen

My favorite is Fifth Avenue. But they are getting hard to find around here. And a Butterfinger is a poor substitute.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is actually subjective. The "Latin" view looks to the Atonement as paying a penalty for sin to satisfy the demands of justice. Augustine thought his ideas best. Anselm thought his theory best. Aquinas, his. And Calvin his. The "Classic" view looks to the Incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness in order to redeem it. Martyr thought his ideas the best suited Scripture. Irenaeus believed his best. Chrysostom his.


I understand that you believe your theory best supports Scripture. I would hope this obvious, as I believe mine best suited to Scripture.

I still do not see how the wrath and holiness of god towards all sin though is dealt with in your theory!
And I still see Pst as what Paul taught in regards to the Atonement...

 

[JonC]

I still do not see how the wrath and holiness of god towards all sin though is dealt with in your theory!
And I still see Pst as what Paul taught in regards to the Atonement...

I know you don't see how other interpretations deal with God's holiness and wrath towards the wicked. And I realize you cannot read Paul except through Penal Substitution Theory.

Based on our previous interactions I believe you to be an intelligent brother with a heart for God. I believe if you find yourself able to distinguish why others draw their conclusions then you will see how other ideas (like Christus Victor, Recipitulation, Moral Influence, and Ontological Substitution) deal with God's holiness and wrath.

Until then we simply have to be content knowing we believe the same gospel and have the same Father. You will just have to know that my understanding does with those things, even if you don't see how.

Hebrews 2:14-15 NKJV
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, [15] and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

 

[Yeshua1]

I know you don't see how other interpretations deal with God's holiness and wrath towards the wicked. And I realize you cannot read Paul except through Penal Substitution Theory.

Based on our previous interactions I believe you to be an intelligent brother with a heart for God. I believe if you find yourself able to distinguish why others draw their conclusions then you will see how other ideas (like Christus Victor, Recipitulation, Moral Influence, and Ontological Substitution) deal with God's holiness and wrath.

Until then we simply have to be content knowing we believe the same gospel and have the same Father. You will just have to know that my understanding does with those things, even if you don't see how.

Hebrews 2:14-15 NKJV
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, [15] and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Pst is the primary view of reformed and Calvinists , correct?