Featured Isaiah 53...

Dang....I was about to hit the button.

Yes, you misunderstood.

The wages of sin are s death, and it is because of sin that it is appointed man once to die. And then the Judgment.

Man has earned those wages. If you call it a punishment then it is man's own doing.

At Judgment it is God who will separate men based on their status in Christ. This is a Christ centered Judgment which exists because of the Cross.

Who authored death as the wages of sin? Satan and man.
Who is the Judge at Judgment? God.

The reason you misunderstood is you were assuming your interpretation of the verse was the only interpretation. Reformed scholars knew since the 16th century that the early Christians viewed the wages of sin, this curse, as physical death. They concluded it was a result of the early church environment (particularly the persecutions). But what if they were right? What if the Bible means exactly what it says?

 

But, you won't. The reason is not punishment and representation but the fact that Penal Substitution Theory holds Jesus as dying instead of us. That is a relatively new belief. Traditional Christianity holds that Christ died for us, suffered and died for our sins.

 

No. Not that He received a punishment that you now will not (although I doubt you will be crucified by the Romans). Christ shared in our infirmities. He came under the curse of sin with us.

I mean substitution as Adam and man - representation (medical substitution, total substitution, ontological substitution....NOT penal substitution).

It was FOR the transgressions of His people that He was stricken.

For....not "instead of".

 

Yes, God is sovereign. He offered His Son, and He offered Himself.

They could not take His life from Him. Instead He gave it. This was in obedience to God. It was God's predetermined plan that His Christ suffer under our curse, that He make our curse His own.

And it is in that way we are saved.

 

He misses that God is sovereign and it was God's plan.

 

Why should I stop using the word in a way it was used since at least 99 AD?

The idea is that Christ became our representative because He substituted Himself in place of all mankind by taking our curse, our sins, upon Himself.

The difference is this is Christ dying for us, not instead of us.

 

Any Christian would say that Christ died for our sins.

But that is not all you say. You add "instead of us" to the passage.

I agree that some Christians since 1600 would say Jesus died for our sins by dying instead of us. And I agree that most, if not all, of the people you read would say that. But most Christians wouldn't (even most since 1600 AD).

You need to keep in mind that Jesus died before 1600 AD.

 

But it does not mean "instead of". And you are leaving out λύτρον.

Can αντι mean "instead of". It could. But it more commonly means "for". More importantly, "instead of" does not work in that verse.....unless you omit λύτρον.


But no, the verse simply does not mean "Christ gave himself as a ransom instead of many".

 

Again, αντι does not carry the meaning "instead of". It means "for", which could also mean "instead of".

Have you not even wondered why nobody before the 16th Century taught that Christ died instead of us?

I get that is why some of the 16th and 17th century Reformed writers appeal to many, but you are aware that Christianity existed, and Christian scholars existed, prior to John Calvin....right?

 

No, I don't care if we think satisfaction or substitution is involved.

I like medical (total, ontological) substitution but that isn't what I consider substitution.

Anselm and Augustine liked satisfactory substitution. Not sure that is how we think of substitution either.

As a legal term proxy is representative substitution. But that isn't quite what you believe substitution either.

But let's look at it.

You say believing :

1. Christ died for our sins but not instead of us
2. Christ came under our curse and suffered under the powers of evil, sharing our infirmity.
3. God offered His Christ to die unjustly looking towards vindication in the Resurrection

Is close enough to Penal Substitution.

I have to wonder how since traditional Christianity did not believe:

1. Christ died instead of us
2. God poured His wrath upon Christ
3. Our sins were forgiven by Christ taking that punishment


So you explain how traditional Christianity, holding a view contrary to Penal Substitution, is close enough to be considered penal substitution.