The Wrath of God

[agedman]

Satisfaction does not adequately describe what happened. If you go back and read in Leviticus the details of the sacrifices, including the lamb, the bullock, and especially the goat that is led away into the wilderness and you will see that a transferring of sin, substitution, was occurring.

When the blood was brought by the priest, if it was unsatisfactory, or the priest was unworthy, what happened?

None of the other matters, if the blood were not the satisfaction.

The rest speak not of substitution, but of transferring and victory.

"Wilderness" is an unfortunate translation. The scapegoat was lead outside the camp to a field and turned loose, never to be used again.

When our Lord died, outside the city walls (whether He had to climb a hill or was placed at the bottom along the roadway has long been discussed it is all the place of Golgotha) the blood was shed, the death and burial were to take place. Again, it is a place of victory, not substitution. A place of satisfaction, not substitution.

 

[Aaron]

When the faithful Israelite brought a burnt offering, it was "accepted for him" to make atonement. In other words, the dedication he lacked was made up for in the substitute he brought. This was signified by the offerer laying his hands on the head of the offering. He was identifying with it. He was saying, this is me.

When the penitent Israelite brought a sin offering, he too placed his hands on the head of the offering. The judgement that was due him was administered to the substitute he brought.

Like the ram that was offered "in the stead" of Abraham's son.

If you miss Christ our substitute, you have missed the Gospel. You need to be taught again those things that are the first principles of the doctrines of Christ.

 

[JonC]

John 11:25-26 does not contradict Hebrews 9:27. In John 11:25-26 there is a phrase not commonly translated, ". . . into the age." Referring to into the age to come. Revelation 21.

That is my point. Scripture does not contradict Scripture, which is why we know Penal Substitution Theory is a false doctrine.

 

[JonC]

The atonement is in the Bible. We are arguing, in part, the meaning of words. 1 Corinthians 15:3, ". . . how that Christ died for on behalf of our sins . . . ." In our place so we do no suffer our penal consequence which is forever. That simply stated is a penal substitution. It is a matter of what the atonement does. And a matter of words to describe it.

Actually the end used in the Bible is a reconciliation.

That said, Scripture tells us that Christ died for us, not instead of us. What we are arguing is whether or not it is acceptable to add to Scripture that Christ died "instead of" us.

I strongly encourage you to at least try to understand Scripture without Penal Substitution Theory. Then you can decide which is correct.

 

[JonC]

When the faithful Israelite brought a burnt offering, it was "accepted for him" to make atonement. In other words, the dedication he lacked was made up for in the substitute he brought. This was signified by the offerer laying his hands on the head of the offering. He was identifying with it. He was saying, this is me.

When the penitent Israelite brought a sin offering, he too placed his hands on the head of the offering. The judgement that was due him was administered to the substitute he brought.

Like the ram that was offered "in the stead" of Abraham's son.

If you miss Christ our substitute, you have missed the Gospel. You need to be taught again those things that are the first principles of the doctrines of Christ.

I see. You believe redemption is God's glory manifested through the Law. This is wrong.

The OT sacrifices foreshadows Christ. The priest does not represent the Father but Christ Himself who is our High Priest. He lay down His life for us.

Penal Substitution Theory is neo-Christianity. It is reformed Roman Catholic doctrine.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

When the blood was brought by the priest, if it was unsatisfactory, or the priest was unworthy, what happened?

None of the other matters, if the blood were not the satisfaction.

It was not the blood that had to be 'without blemish' but the animal itself; the physical perfections of the creature speaking of the moral perfection of the Lord Jesus.(1 Peter 1:19).

The rest speak not of substitution, but of transferring and victory.

It speaks absolutely of substitution. The guilt of the people was 'transferred' to a 'substitute.'

"Wilderness" is an unfortunate translation. The scapegoat was lead outside the camp to a field and turned loose, never to be used again.

The Israelites were in a desert, a wilderness. Where do you find a field in a desert?

When our Lord died, outside the city walls (whether He had to climb a hill or was placed at the bottom along the roadway has long been discussed it is all the place of Golgotha) the blood was shed, the death and burial were to take place. Again, it is a place of victory, not substitution. A place of satisfaction, not substitution.

It is certainly a place of victory, but I'll be interested if you will tell me, before yet another thread closes, in what you believe that victory consisted. And whom and what did our Lord satisfy?
But I can tell you now for whom He substituted. Me,

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I see. You believe redemption is God's glory manifested through the Law. This is wrong.

The OT sacrifices foreshadows Christ. The priest does not represent the Father but Christ Himself who is our High Priest. He lay down His life for us.

I'm sure @Aaron can answer for himself, but nowhere in his post did he suggest that God's glory is manifested through the law. The words 'glory,' 'manifested' or law did not appear. Nor did he suggest that the Father is our high priest. The words priest' and 'Father' do not appear in his post.
As a moderator you have a duty to set higher standards of debate than this.

 

[37818]

That is my point. Scripture does not contradict Scripture, which is why we know Penal Substitution Theory is a false doctrine.

The atonement is a penal substitution. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:8. For me to believe otherwise would be a false gospel. I am not going to do that.

 

[JonC]

It was not the blood that had to be 'without blemish' but the animal itself; the physical perfections of the creature speaking of the moral perfection of the Lord Jesus.(1 Peter 1:19).

It speaks absolutely of substitution. The guilt of the people was 'transferred' to a 'substitute.'

The Israelites were in a desert, a wilderness. Where do you find a field in a desert?

It is certainly a place of victory, but I'll be interested if you will tell me, before yet another thread closes, in what you believe that victory consisted. And whom and what did our Lord satisfy?
But I can tell you now for whom He substituted. Me,

Where do you get the idea that God had to satisfy anybody?

Christ is our substitute in the sense that Adam was our substitute (representation).

There is a reason Augustine emphasized that the idea Christ's death appeased God was a departure from Christianity. It is a small step towards that error but the error itself is skews so much of Scripture.

I encourage you to read Scripture without the lens of the Theory. Once you are able to understand Scripture without Penal Substitution Theory you will be able to compare the views and only then legitimately say which is biblical.

 

[JonC]

I'm sure @Aaron can answer for himself, but nowhere in his post did he suggest that God's glory is manifested through the law. The words 'glory,' 'manifested' or law did not appear. Nor did he suggest that the Father is our high priest. The words priest' and 'Father' do not appear in his post.
As a moderator you have a duty to set higher standards of debate than this.

His post itself suggests that our redemption is manifested through the Law.

Where does Scriipture say the Isralite was saying "this is me"? It doesn't.

The sacrifice system pointed to Christ offering Himself for us. To your theory, Scripture never states that Christ died instead of us. Instead Scripture says Christ shared our infirmaty.

I wrestled with whether a person could believe Penal Substitution and be saved. Augustine considered the idea Christ's death appeased God to be a strong heresy, excluding the person from Christianity.

But for most of my life I believed as you. I held, taught, and defended the Penal Substitution Atonement. And I was no less a Christian.

My conclusion is the gospel itself is much simpler than man's theories, and shines through even the false doctrine of Penal Substitution.

I would prefer that you were less dependent on reformed RCC ideas in your doctrine, but you are no less saved and no less a brother. I prefer that because there is so much of Scripture that you miss when you add Penal Substitution Theory to Scripture because it change the meaning of what is actually written in God's Word.

 

[Aaron]

I see. You believe redemption is God's glory manifested through the Law. This is wrong.

The OT sacrifices foreshadows Christ. The priest does not represent the Father but Christ Himself who is our High Priest. He lay down His life for us.

Penal Substitution Theory is neo-Christianity. It is reformed Roman Catholic doctrine.

Christ is revealed in the law. Moses wrote of Him. John 5:46

Now go learn of Him.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Where do you get the idea that God had to satisfy anybody?

From Scripture God's justice must be satisfied, and He Himself, in the Person of the Lord Jesus has satisfied that justice (Romans 3:26).

Christ is our substitute in the sense that Adam was our substitute (representation).

So Adam died for your sins, did he? How interesting.

There is a reason Augustine emphasized that the idea Christ's death appeased God was a departure from Christianity. It is a small step towards that error but the error itself is skews so much of Scripture.

You keep claiming this about Augustine, but you never post anything by him. I gave a quotation from Augustine. Why can't you do the same? Here another one for you: ''Christ has no sin in the sense of deserving death, but He bore for our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought on human nature by sin' ['Against Faustus', bk 14, sect.3]

I encourage you to read Scripture without the lens of the Theory. Once you are able to understand Scripture without Penal Substitution Theory you will be able to compare the views and only then legitimately say which is biblical.

This is a particularly snide and supercilious thing to say. However, it is reversible.
I encourage you to read Scripture without the lens of your theory. Once you are able to understand Scripture without that lens, you will be able to compare the views and only then legitimately say which is biblical.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 430 am EST / 130 am PST

This thread is closed