The Fundamentals -- Torrey, Dixon and others

[Martin Marprelate]

God never smote the Son

Come on, Agedman! You know better than that. Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet is pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'

 

[Yeshua1]

Just so the reader might know, the “ransom theory” was pretty much the universally accepted “encapsulating” theory of the early church.

They also included a victorious Christ and the substitution as part of the mix.

PST became prominent during the reformation as reactionary to the teaching of the RCC. As such, it has long been recognized by Protestant theologians as a vital part but not exclusive to the total presentation of the matters in Scriptures.

The early forms of PST did not stress God pouring out wrath upon the Son, but working in concert with the Son.

There are three basic aspects of redemption. The “vicarious atonement” (substitution of Christ for believers), the victorious Christ (over death and the grave) and the adoption as heirs (child of God).

The PST addresses a single and rather narrow thread, and other viable theories may also use the same thread in the fabric, but not run to the extreme the reformers often took.

Now, this post is for information, and is also opinion based.

It would be wise for the readers to do their own work on this topic of theories of atonement and not rely upon typical talking (posting points).

The Pst theory allows for those other 2 to also be present.... In fact, Jesus had to appease the wrath of God first, in order that those others could be accomplished!

 

[Yeshua1]

And again, there is history involved.

Part of the “push back” against the German higher thinking, the influence of Mormons, JWs, liberal teaching of most seminaries and universities,... all played into the reactionary stands they took.

It makes little difference, though, for PS is still a theory, and as such is rightfully reviewed periodically for revision.

It is one of other viable presentations in which a theologian must be familiar.

On a personal note: I do not reject but a single point of the PST. 1st, I do not find God’s wrath poured out upon the examples of tabernacle and temple atonement sacrifices, except upon those who would offer such unworthily. 2nd, I do not see it in the prophecies. 3rd, I do not see it in the presentations of accounts in the NT.

But this is ground you and I have already trekked.

My simple point was in those Fundamentals, that would have been their agreed upon Atonement view!

 

[Yeshua1]

One of these days I shall do a mammoth posting of all the evidence for Penal Substitution among the Church fathers, starting with Clement of Rome.

All forms of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution have the Father working in concert with the Son.
The idea that on the cross the Father inflicted upon the Son a punishment He was unwilling to bear (John 10:18) or that the Son extracted from the Father a salvation He was unwilling to bestow (John 3:16), would be an egregious error. I know of no one who committed it.
I

The Lord Jesus willingly bore the due penalty for our sins against Holy God, was not being abused, or God child abusing him as some against Pst maintain!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How dare penal substitution try to blame my Father!

We don't blame Him; we praise Him, along with the Son and the Spirit.

'What was it, O our God,
Led You to give Your Son,
To yield Your well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led You to give
Your well-loved Son that we might live.

What led the Son of God
To leave His throne on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
Unbounded love for sinners lost
Led Him to suffer at such cost.

What moved You to impart
Your Spirit from above,
That He might fill our heart
With peace and heavenly love?
Unbounded love moved You to send
The Spirit as our guide and friend.

What love to You we owe,
Our God for all Your grace!
Our hearts may well o'erflow
In everlasting praise:
Then let us raise our songs on high
Such boundless love to magnify.' [Ann Gilbert, 1782-1866]

 

[Yeshua1]

Certainly, Isaiah is fulfilled even in this day when it states,

“we esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted, but...”
​

God never smote the Son, rather humans did, and God allowed human kind to do the very worse they could. Satan filled rebellious caretakers of the creation who had killed the prophets and servants God had sent did to the Son all that was in their wicked hearts, just as the parable He stated they would.

I do not disagree with the forensic matters of penal substitution.

What I very much disagree is that such was God’s hand of wrath pour out.

Not a single place in Scripture is such examples by any atonement offering, nor symbolized in construction details.

Not a single work or word of prophecy except that what would be done “pleased - was approved by, or allowed - by God.”

Now, for decades I have heard folks vainly attempt to present Christ as cursed by God. But that thinking doesn’t fit the Galatians restatement of Deuteronomy. Christ removed the curse of the law, He was doomed (accursed) to die by the enforcers and enforcement of the law. Just as Isaiah stated about our (believers) transgressions and sins were laid by human actions upon Him and He returned healing and peace.

It was my sin,r our salvation!o experience that fo my transgressions, at my hand that put Christ on that cross.

How dare penal substitution try to blame my Father!

It pleased God the father to Himself crush and bruse His own Son, and Jesus was willing to endure that for our salvation sake!

 

[Yeshua1]

God forsook His Son.
Psalms 22:1, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . .."

Matthew 26:, ". . . And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . ."

Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Isaiah 53:4, ". . . smitten of God, and afflicted."

God treated Jesus while on that Cross as a Lost sinner, as Jesus experienced the Hell of eternal separation on that Cross!

 

[37818]

! We cannot even agree on these essentials today,

Five Fundamentals of the Faith
"And those who disagree with any of the above doctrines are not Christians at all. Rather, they are the true heretics."

 

[agedman]

Come on, Agedman! You know better than that. Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet is pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'

I put my son to grief, but didn’t have to directly strike him. I gave him an unpleasant task.

That is exactly why the Lord prayed , “not my will...” in the garden.

That humankind still boast that God smote with wrath the Son in some manner of vengeance is robbing me of my shame and blaming God for my behavior.

 

[Yeshua1]

None of those demonstrate God’s wrath poured out upon the Son.

Btw, “forsake” does not mean abandon, it means withdrawing support. Which is exactly the statement of the Psalms, Matthew, and Isaiah.

And “WE esteemed him smitten of God and afflicted, BUT He was...”.

God didn’t afflict Him, but we thought and according to PST still do think God did.

God allowed the affliction. He prophesied the affliction. He endorsed the affliction.

But God did not afflict the Son, or such would have been pictured and a demonstrated part of the atonement sacrifice system in the OT.

Jesus experience exactly same thing on that Cross lost sinners do forever!

 

[agedman]

God treated Jesus while on that Cross as a Lost sinner, as Jesus experienced the Hell of eternal separation on that Cross!

Prove it!

No place does Scripture present such fantasy.

Psalms 22 which gives us the very thoughts of the Redeemer on the cross, don’t even hint as such!

 

[Yeshua1]

We don't blame Him; we praise Him, along with the Son and the Spirit.

'What was it, O our God,
Led You to give Your Son,
To yield Your well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led You to give
Your well-loved Son that we might live.

What led the Son of God
To leave His throne on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
Unbounded love for sinners lost
Led Him to suffer at such cost.

What moved You to impart
Your Spirit from above,
That He might fill our heart
With peace and heavenly love?
Unbounded love moved You to send
The Spirit as our guide and friend.

What love to You we owe,
Our God for all Your grace!
Our hearts may well o'erflow
In everlasting praise:
Then let us raise our songs on high
Such boundless love to magnify.' [Ann Gilbert, 1782-1866]

God did not inflect that upon Jesus in spite, or as child abuse, as Jesus agreed to do it!

 

[Yeshua1]

I put my son to grief, but didn’t have to directly strike him. I gave him an unpleasant task.

That is exactly why the Lord prayed , “not my will...” in the garden.

That humankind still boast that God smote with wrath the Son in some manner of vengeance is robbing me of my shame and blaming God for my behavior.

Jesus was my sin bearer, he received form God the Father exactly in my place the due judgement and separation for my sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

Prove it!

No place does Scripture present such fantasy.

Psalms 22 which gives us the very thoughts of the Redeemer on the cross, don’t even hint as such!

Isaiah 53 certainly does!

 

[Yeshua1]

Come on, Agedman! You know better than that. Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet is pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'

He seems to see God indirectly part of the Cross, as only humans placed Him on it and killed Him!

 

[agedman]

God did not inflect that upon Jesus in spite, or as child abuse, as Jesus agreed to do it!

That offers nothing substantial to your proof. You need to cite three proofs.

Unless you can show 1) by OT practice within the atonement sacrificial system God’s wrath directed toward the actual sacrifice, and unless you can 2) demonstrate by prophetic statements such was to be done, and unless you can 3) show by NT accounts that it took place, then there is no support for God pouring wrath out upon the Son.

 

[agedman]

Isaiah 53 certainly does!

As has been shown REPEATEDLY it does not!

Isaiah actually REFUTES PST, by stating ”We esteemed...”.
But that was NOT the position God took concerning His crucifixion.

 

[agedman]

Jesus was my sin bearer, he received form God the Father exactly in my place the due judgement and separation for my sins!

Again, you must provide Scripture proof.

Over and over throughout the decades I have heard much failed descriptions of the work, and, when confronted by Scripture authority were each found profoundly lacking in truth.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I put my son to grief, but didn’t have to directly strike him. I gave him an unpleasant task.

'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him.'

 

[agedman]

'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him.'

Again, as a father, my son was bruised.

When I appointed a load he was to carry.

The bruises, the wounds, ... might have come by completing the required task.

But, such a reference does NOT appoint wrath or vengeance.