Atonement Continued

[JonC]

JonC, I have really tried to understand your position. I’ve read the posts and the views of others, including agedman.

Bottom line, it seems you are making distinctions within passages when there really is no difference.

You rightly claim Jesus died for our sins. You then claim He was not our substitute.

You rightly claim God the Father gave Jesus as an offering. You then claim He was not our substitute.

The OT sacrificial system is based on PSA, even if those exact words aren’t used. Pauline doctrine is saturated with PSA language, even if that phrase isn’t used. It simply isn’t true that PSA is a modern doctrine since it is taught by Paul.

As others pointed out, we accept the doctrine of the Trinity, even though that word is never used in scripture.

I understand you believe it. I understand you believe God has given you that understanding

I am just as firmly convinced that PSA is biblical and that God has led me to that conclusion.

Peace to you

I understand what you are saying. I was there myself for most of my life.

I am not saying that God did not lead you to your understanding. I think God leads us in directions to help us grow, but then we continue to grow.

We hold a worldview that lends itself to Penal Substitution Theory. But at some point I do believe we need to move on to a more biblical understanding.

There is a difference between saying Christ did something for us and saying this means He was our substitute.

It was difficult for me to understand initially. But it is really simple (perhaps this is why we find it so difficult). Just try reading Scripture for exactly what is in the text.

 

[SavedByGrace]

This evidence from the early Chruch, shows without any doubt, that the Bible's Teaching on the Death of Jesus Christ, is Penal Substituation. PERIOD!

PSA In The Early Church

 

[SavedByGrace]

I understand what you are saying. I was there myself for most of my life.

I am not saying that God did not lead you to your understanding. I think God leads us in directions to help us grow, but then we continue to grow.

We hold a worldview that lends itself to Penal Substitution Theory. But at some point I do believe we need to move on to a more biblical understanding.

There is a difference between saying Christ did something for us and saying this means He was our substitute.

It was difficult for me to understand initially. But it is really simple (perhaps this is why we find it so difficult). Just try reading Scripture for exactly what is in the text.

Jon, it is good to see your continuted threads on PSA, it seems to me that you are not too clear on what you actually believe, as you need to keep on bumping your THEORY!

 

[Aaron]

Hey, friends. No reason to beat a dead horse unless you just like the smell of death and the sound of the flies buzzing.

 

[atpollard]

Atonement Continued ...
... because at this point we have SO MANY unanswered questions about each other's opinions.

 

[atpollard]

This evidence from the early Chruch, shows without any doubt, that the Bible's Teaching on the Death of Jesus Christ, is Penal Substituation. PERIOD!

I really have to call you on this.
You present a verse that says "Christ suffered" and throw your hands in the air in a shout of victory. The problem with that is that NOBODY is claiming that Christ did not suffer! We are asking for verses that indicate:

1. God PUNISHED Christ.
2. Christ suffered OUR PUNISHMENT from God.

Your bible verses and quotes from Ignatius just don't say that. They say that typically Christ suffered and we are forgiven. That is NOT the same thing. I lean towards Jesus satisfying the JUSTICE of God (as Christ Victorious over sin and death) rather than the WRATH of God. It is not the SUFFERING or OUR SIN that I question ... it is the assumption that God poured OUR PUNISHMENT onto CHRIST when I cannot find actual scripture that clearly teaches this perfectly logical man-made conclusion.

You should not need to "read between the lines" for something that important.

 

[agedman]

Jon, it is good to see your continuted threads on PSA, it seems to me that you are not too clear on what you actually believe, as you need to keep on bumping your THEORY!

This is really funny, considering your recent posts trying to show evidence from early church folks, that wasn’t evidence of PSA theory at all.

AGAIN,

It is the HOW AND WHY the messiah suffered and was cursed NOT that He suffered and was cursed that makes PSA unscriptural.

ANY THEORY that does not acknowledge the suffering and the curse is heretical!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I really have to call you on this.
You present a verse that says "Christ suffered" and throw your hands in the air in a shout of victory. The problem with that is that NOBODY is claiming that Christ did not suffer! We are asking for verses that indicate:

1. God PUNISHED Christ.
2. Christ suffered OUR PUNISHMENT from God.

Your bible verses and quotes from Ignatius just don't say that. They say that typically Christ suffered and we are forgiven. That is NOT the same thing. I lean towards Jesus satisfying the JUSTICE of God (as Christ Victorious over sin and death) rather than the WRATH of God. It is not the SUFFERING or OUR SIN that I question ... it is the assumption that God poured OUR PUNISHMENT onto CHRIST when I cannot find actual scripture that clearly teaches this perfectly logical man-made conclusion.

You should not need to "read between the lines" for something that important.

The problem with you, Jon, Agedman and the others who deny the Biblcial Teaching of PSA, is that you simply reject out of hand the passage in Isaiah

"Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded FOR OUR transgressions, he was bruised FOR OUR iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and He was afflicted; yet He opened not His mouth. He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth...Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" Isaiah 53:4, 5-7, 10)

It is very clear that Jesus Christ is here "SMITTEN of God, and AFFLICTED". No doubt that the "WOUNDED, BRUISED" is also BY the Lord, as is the "BRUISING"

BOTH of your points are seen in this passage. Show that they are not!

 

[agedman]

Hey, friends. No reason to beat a dead horse unless you just like the smell of death and the sound of the flies buzzing.

Is PSA a dead horse?

Nice to see someone proclaim it as such!

 

[SavedByGrace]

This is really funny, considering your recent posts trying to show evidence from early church folks, that wasn’t evidence of PSA theory at all.

AGAIN,

It is the HOW AND WHY the messiah suffered and was cursed NOT that He suffered and was cursed that makes PSA unscriptural.

ANY THEORY that does not acknowledge the suffering and the curse is heretical!

# 8 answers you and the others.

It is very clear that the early Church, like the Bible, taught PSA. It is only not there for the likes of you, Jon and Atpollard, who don't want to admit that you are WRONG!

 

[agedman]

The problem with you, Jon, Agedman and the others who deny the Biblcial Teaching of PSA, is that you simply reject out of hand the passage in Isaiah

"Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded FOR OUR transgressions, he was bruised FOR OUR iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and He was afflicted; yet He opened not His mouth. He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth...Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" Isaiah 53:4, 5-7, 10)

It is very clear that Jesus Christ is here "SMITTEN of God, and AFFLICTED". No doubt that the "WOUNDED, BRUISED" is also BY the Lord, as is the "BRUISING"

BOTH of your points are seen in this passage. Show that they are not!

Untrue, and you know it or are in denial being shown.

“We” (human kind) esteemed him smitten of God and afflicted, BUT …”

The conjunction excludes God, not includes God!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Untrue, and you know it or are in denial being shown.

“We” (human kind) esteemed him smitten of God and afflicted, BUT …”

The conjunction excludes God, not includes God!

מֻכֵּה אֱלֹהִים, is literally, "smitten BY God"

verse 5, "He was crushed FOR OUR iniquities"

verse 10, "Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush Him"

 

[agedman]

# 8 answers you and the others.

It is very clear that the early Church, like the Bible, taught PSA. It is only not there for the likes of you, Jon and Atpollard, who don't want to admit that you are WRONG!

Number 8 is verse is NOT PSA theory.

That YOU present that the torture of the Christ was by God and the Scriptures state that it was prophesied to happen by God is the fallacy of PSA.

But, most PSA advocates cannot seem to distinguish the difference and see any verse that is in the Scripture PSA.

Why is it that Psalms 22 that presents the very thoughts of the messiah during the crucifixion does not present God as the brutal victimizer that PSA ascribes Him to be?

Because God wasn't.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Number 8 is verse is NOT PSA theory.

That YOU present that the torture of the Christ was by God and the Scriptures state that it was prophesied to happen by God is the fallacy of PSA.

But, most PSA advocates cannot seem to distinguish the difference and see any verse that is in the Scripture PSA.

Why is it that Psalms 22 that presents the very thoughts of the messiah during the crucifixion does not present God as the brutal victimizer that PSA ascribes Him to be?

Because God wasn't.

The words of Paul in Acts 28 come to mind for you are the other opposers of Bible Truth!

Well did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, "Go to this people and say: Hearing you shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see and not perceive"

I am done with wasting my time.

 

[agedman]

מֻכֵּה אֱלֹהִים, is literally, "smitten BY God"

WE ESTEEMED HIM smitten BY God, BUT.

The "but" followed what humankind think.

The PSA thinking never got to the "but" and just grasp at blaming God rather then the vile humans.

Look, there is no need to bring your skill in languages into the posts if you are going to ignore what has been presented.

I once had a professor who when confronted with an issue in which he had no answer and was uncomfortable, would change his level of vocabulary to multi-syllabic words thinking that by impressing us with the grand vocabulary it bolstered his status.

Are you attempting to do the same?

 

[agedman]

The words of Paul in Acts 28 come to mind for you are the other opposers of Bible Truth!

Well did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, "Go to this people and say: Hearing you shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see and not perceive"

I am done with wasting my time.

You quitting?

I show you the truth and you run?

Why?

You haven't proved PSA is Scriptural.

You haven't shown PSA was taught by the early church.

You haven't even rendered the Scriptures without error, and yet you bluster about my ears and understanding, my lack of perception?

If you run away, how are you following what God told Isaiah?

He said go, so you run?

 

[agedman]

מֻכֵּה אֱלֹהִים, is literally, "smitten BY God"

verse 5, "He was crushed FOR OUR iniquities"

verse 10, "Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush Him"

Yep, and other theories teach the same, EXCEPT for the PSA which tries to convince folk that God reached out of heaven and squished the Son.

That God was so incensed with God that He couldn't stand Himself.

That the trinity dissolved in God brutalizing the Son for what God had planned all along.

That fits right in with the Reformed attitude of the 1500's. Let's kill everyone that has taken on sin.

 

[JonC]

Jon, it is good to see your continuted threads on PSA, it seems to me that you are not too clear on what you actually believe, as you need to keep on bumping your THEORY!

No. I am clear on what I believe as I hope you are on what you believe. This is a continuation of Biblical Atonement (not Penal Substitution Theory but any view members may want to discuss).

If you believe me unclear then just ask for clarification.

 

[JonC]

The problem with you, Jon, Agedman and the others who deny the Biblcial Teaching of PSA, is that you simply reject out of hand the passage in Isaiah

"Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded FOR OUR transgressions, he was bruised FOR OUR iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and He was afflicted; yet He opened not His mouth. He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth...Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" Isaiah 53:4, 5-7, 10)

It is very clear that Jesus Christ is here "SMITTEN of God, and AFFLICTED". No doubt that the "WOUNDED, BRUISED" is also BY the Lord, as is the "BRUISING"

BOTH of your points are seen in this passage. Show that they are not!

No. @agedman and I accept what is written in Scripture, including Isaiah. In fact, Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are my go to passages when dealing with the Cross. They certainly are far from proving Penal Substitution Theory....in fact, the Theory opposes those chapters in a few places....especially Psalm 22, and if you include the surrounding chaoters of Isaiah).

 

[SavedByGrace]

No. @agedman and I accept what is written in Scripture, including Isaiah. In fact, Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are my go to passages when dealing with the Cross. They certainly are far from proving Penal Substitution Theory....in fact, the Theory opposes those chapters in a few places....especially Psalm 22, and if you include the surrounding chaoters of Isaiah).

Dude it is very clear that you don't even understand what PSA is