It fits within PSA atonement much better then the other theories though!
-
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!
3 Reasons I changed my mind about Penal Substitution
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
No, it does not.
The passage has the people as erroneously entering the "Servant" as stricken. The passage does not have the "Servant" suffering God's wrath.
It is better without the addition on Penal Substitution Theory.
God was pleased to crush Messiah, to have experience all that lost sinners will, including being forsaken!
Part of your post is Scripture, part made up.
I am not sure you can even tell which is which, so I will help.
God was pleased to crush Him is Scripture. Peter preached this in Acts - the Jews handed Christ over to suffer and die at the hands of wicked men but this was the preordained plan of God.
The rest are your additions to God's Word.
Will you please explain to me the verses that say that the people were wrong? He patently was 'smitten' (v.5) and v.10 tells us that it was Yahweh who did the smiting. You are making an assumption that is without Biblical evidence.
The mistake the people made was that they didn't understand why He was smitten by God.
The "yet" or "but". The point is the people esteemed the Servant as stricken by God but He was dying for their sins (not His own) as they were the ones truly stricken.
Do you know of a passage stating Jesus suffered under God's hand - NOT under God's will (as in it pleased Him to crush Him or He died at the hands of the wicked but in accordance to God's predetermined plan) but a verse stating God was inflicting the suffering?
The point is that there is no verse that states that the people were wrong in esteeming the Servant as stricken by God. In fact they were exactly right.
It pleased the Lord to crush Him. The verse does not say that it pleased the Lord that He was crushed. According to Motyer, 'LORD' is emphatic, as in 'It was the LORD who willed or delighted to crush the Servant. So when we read in v.5 that He was crushed for our iniquities, v.10 makes it very clear who was doing the crushing.
How the Father must love us miserable sinners that He should delight in causing the sufferings of His beloved Son!
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11:10 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 11:10 PM Pacific.
The passage itself states the people were wrong (that is the point).
This thread is closed.
- Status