I agree with those passages.
I am just saying when you use the term "penal substitution" to refer to what we both affirm people may get the idea you also embrace the false doctrine expressed in Penal Substitution Theory.
-
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!
TULIP Was Never Alive to Begin With
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
I am just saying when you use the term "penal substitution" to refer to what we both affirm people may get the idea you also embrace the false doctrine expressed in Penal Substitution Theory.
It depends on what you mean by wrath.
Christ was handed over by the Jews to suffer and die "at the hands of wicked men". I suppose that is wrath, as He became a curse for us, shared in our infirmity, and suffered and died under the bondage we also suffer under. He experienced the wages of sin that we all experience, but He is without sin.
From God's perspective the Cross is a place of love, a place where Christ lay down His life for us, a place where God offered His Son to redeem us. No greater love has a man but He lay down His own life.
LOL, okay, Mr. Clinton.
Shall I explain it again?
The wicked men at whose hands Christ suffered were merely God's instruments, it is still God doing the bruising. Isaiah 53:10
But the Spirit also gave us a picture.
The veil was torn in two from the top to the bottom. The veil is Christ's flesh. Hebrews 10:20
Who tore the veil? God. This is how the Cross is seen from God's perspective. He is breaking Christ's body through His instruments, because He so loved the world.
Christ was not sinless on the Cross. He was bearing my sin, 1 Peter 2:24 meaning He was carrying my sin through judgment, the breaking of His body. To bear my sin means to take my punishment.
He was not only bearing my sin, He was bearing my guilt. To become a curse, means that Christ became guilty of sin, my sin, as we're told in the law that prescribed the tree, Deuteronomy 21:22-23 , and in Paul's affirmation of that fact Galatians 3:13.
You don't make Christ a redeemer in your descriptions, you make Him a mere martyr.
But if the above is not enough to convince you of your error that Christ was merely suffering at the hands of wicked men as any other martyr would, let the fact that the One who commanded martyrs not to fear those who can kill the body only, feared this death, and prayed more than once that this cup pass from Him do so.
Last edited:
It is what Justification requires. God does not become indifferent to our sins. We aren't merely forgiven. We're justified. Our sins aren't merely forgotten, they're destroyed. We aren't merely pronounced just, we're truly made just by the destruction of our sins in the body of Christ.
This is what it means that mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
Isaiah 53:10-11 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt 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. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
We also need to understand that the death of Christ is what birthed us anew. When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed.
No. I do not need your explanations.
I once believed as you. At times I wonder if people can be truly saved holding your view - what is essentially another gospel, something foreign to Scripture. But then I realize I was saved when I held your view. The gospel of Christ is greater than the error you hold.
Scripture tells us that Christ suffered and died at the hands of wicked men by the predetermined plan of God.
You want to add to Scripture.
That is your mistake.
Why?
You speak of God not becoming indifferent towards our sins. But you are making God indifferent from the actual wicked.
We all agree that Christ bore our sins bodily. We agree God laid our iniquities on Him.
You interpret that in a specific way because you believe that God has to punish sinful actions even if this is not punishing the actual wicked (the person who committed those transgressions).
I understand why Calvin believed it (he was a student of 16th century law, and Renaissance Humanism.
But why do you believe that? That is my question. Why do you believe divine justice is in accordance with 16th century judicial philosophy?
Why do you believe God has the punished sinful actions even if it means punishing one who did not commit the crime?
Sorry to make you look so absolutely devoid of any Scriptural knowledge, but you haven't rebutted one point I've made. You just offer bluster.
How about talking about the veil?
I posted the Scripture from which you detract.
LOL. How's the discussion in the private moderators' forum going? This is the charge I made in my report about you. Is the administration hornswoggled by your fountain of jargon? I can tell Cassidy is no longer with us.
You posted Scripture.
Isaiah 53:10-11 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt 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. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
But you did not post Scripture supporting your view.
I agree that the Cross was God's will. Christ became obedient even to death on a cross. I agree He shall see the travail of His soul and be satisfied. I agree He shall justify many. I agree he bore their sins.
But you have not addressed my question.
You take a position that is a dumbed down version of Aquinas' theory, using a 16th century idea of justice rather than merit. Why is that right?
Why do you believe that God must punished sinful actions separate from punishing the people who committed those sinful actions?
That my knowledge there is not a discussion. The charge you made was ignorant and is easily dismissed.
Tom and I have had the same discussion a year or so before he passed. He disagreed with my view, but conceded it was a common Christian (and Baptist) position.
The veil represented the separation between God and man which resulted from sin.
You're very hard of hearing.
He punished us in Christ. He stood in my place. He said, "I am Aaron, and these are my sins." And God judged me according to my sins.
And now I am justified.
Now, deal with the points I made without all the grandstanding.
Right. I know for a fact he would take issue with the manner in which you are dishonoring and deprecating the work of Christ on the Cross now.
You are avoiding the question.
Punishing another person as if it were punishing us is still punishing another person.
Why do you believe God must punish sins apart from punishing the actual sinner?
Why do you believe that God would punish the Righteous in order to acquit the guilty (which is something that is an abomination to God)?
Oh....he did take issue in that he disagreed. But he also acknowledged my position was a historically Christian view which is also held by Baptists.
In other words, Tom was educated and knowledgeable in terms of the Christian faith. You are not.
Sorry. Calling B.S. on this.
That's because of your confusion of what it means to be in Christ. That's not what He did.