Isaiah 53...

[JonC]

I'm not lying, you just disagree with my conclusion.

Maybe I misunderstood. Who punishes sin?

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?

 

[Aaron]

I never said that Christ as our substitute in the sentence handed down to our sins is a new idea.

Christ did suffer the wages of sin.

Yes, but what do you mean by that? Do you mean it as expressed in the OP? or that He received a punishment that I now will not?

Again you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

I said that penal substitution is a new idea (that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us for our sins).

Then I fail to see where I'm misrepresenting anything.

That's exactly what I see you saying. Here you're saying that Christ is our substitute, but not really. LOL

 

[JonC]

It seems like when you look at all these different aspects of the cross and the fact that Jesus was unjustly crucified, yet there is an aspect of this being the reason God can justify guilty sinners and still be just in doing so. And there is the aspect of Jesus being completely innocent himself yet bearing all our sin in himself. Add to this the fact that this seems to have been planned and orchestrated by the Triune God so that even the injustice of the trial and crucifixion was true it was God's sovereign plan and desire. And when you consider that there is an undeniable aspect of God's revealed attitude toward our sin to be a tendency best described as "wrath". And when you realize that the cross somehow caused a reconciliation between God and sinners. Well, I think if you take all this, and sit down and write out an explanation that covers everything - you will end up with penal substitution.

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.

 

[JonC]

Yes, but what do you mean by that? Do you mean it as expressed in the OP? or that He received a punishment that I now will not?

Then I fail to see where I'm misrepresenting anything.

That's exactly what I see you saying. Here you're saying that Christ is our substitute, but not really. LOL

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".

 

[Aaron]

Did The Serpent bruise His heel, or not?

@Martin Marprelate says Satan was too smart to do it. I guess he means God did it, alone.

Ahhh, there you go. Yes, the Serpent bruised his heel, as the instrument in God's hand. Because the veil, that is to say, His flesh, Hebrews 10:20 , was torn by God.

 

[Aaron]

It seems like when you look at all these different aspects of the cross and the fact that Jesus was unjustly crucified, yet there is an aspect of this being the reason God can justify guilty sinners and still be just in doing so. And there is the aspect of Jesus being completely innocent himself yet bearing all our sin in himself. Add to this the fact that this seems to have been planned and orchestrated by the Triune God so that even the injustice of the trial and crucifixion was true it was God's sovereign plan and desire. And when you consider that there is an undeniable aspect of God's revealed attitude toward our sin to be a tendency best described as "wrath". And when you realize that the cross somehow caused a reconciliation between God and sinners. Well, I think if you take all this, and sit down and write out an explanation that covers everything - you will end up with penal substitution.

Yup. Pretty simple.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

I suppose you can keep making that distinction, but I don't see where anyone else does. I doubt the validity of that distinction. Any Christian post 1600 would say Jesus died for our sins. We can go back and forth forever on this but if Jesus really died for our sins then that is a case where for is the same as instead of. I think this is a made up distinction with no meaning.

 

[JonC]

"Which begs the question(s):

Who sold Joseph into Egypt?:
20 And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Gen 50

Who moved David?:
And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 Sam 24:1
And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. 1 Chron 21:1

Who enticed Ahab?:
20 And Jehovah said, Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner; and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before Jehovah, and said, I will entice him.
22 And Jehovah said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee. 1 Ki 22

Who afflicted Job?:
11 But put forth thy hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will renounce thee to thy face.
12 And Jehovah said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thy hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of Jehovah. Job 1
5 But put forth thy hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will renounce thee to thy face.
6 And Jehovah said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thy hand; only spare his life. Job 2

Who tempted Christ?:
1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil Mt 4 [Mark 1:12]

Who sifted Peter?:
31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: Lu 22

Who buffeted Paul?:
7 And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations, that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, that I should not be exalted overmuch. 2 Cor 12

Who killed Christ?:
10 be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole.
26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against his Anointed:
27 for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together,
28 to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass. Acts 4"

Classical vs Latin Atonement

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.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate says Satan was too smart to do it. I guess he means God did it, alone.

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

 

[Aaron]

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".

Well you don't get the privilege of redefining terms. A representative and a substitute are not the same thing. An advocate and a substitute are not the same thing. You need to stop using the term "substitute" to describe your view. There is no discipline in which the term is used that way.

Is sacharin a sugar representative or a sugar substitute?

 

[Aaron]

I suppose you can keep making that distinction, but I don't see where anyone else does. I doubt the validity of that distinction. Any Christian post 1600 would say Jesus died for our sins. We can go back and forth forever on this but if Jesus really died for our sins then that is a case where for is the same as instead of. I think this is a made up distinction with no meaning.

Bingo.

 

[JonC]

Well you don't get the privilege of redefining terms. A representative and a substitute are not the same thing. An advocate and a substitute are not the same thing. You need to stop using the term "substitute" to describe your view. There is no discipline in which the term is used that way.

Is sacharin a sugar representative or a sugar substitute?

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.

 

[JonC]

I suppose you can keep making that distinction, but I don't see where anyone else does. I doubt the validity of that distinction. Any Christian post 1600 would say Jesus died for our sins. We can go back and forth forever on this but if Jesus really died for our sins then that is a case where for is the same as instead of. I think this is a made up distinction with no meaning.

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.

 

[37818]

. . . not instead of us.

Then throw out Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. Instead of many. . . . αντι πολλων.

 

[JonC]

Then throw out Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. Instead of many. . . . αντι πολλων.

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".

 

[37818]

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".

. . . και δουναι την ψυχην αυτου λυτρον αντι πολλων.

 

[JonC]

. . . και δουναι την ψυχην αυτου λυτρον αντι πολλων.

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?

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

No. I'm just saying that what you are doing is trying to come up with a distinction that will preserve the idea that satisfaction was involved, and substitution and that Christ died for us. But yet you dance around the obvious implications of what all this means. And in addition, you cannot give any reference to some school of thought that does this that is a recognizable group. Making distinctions that no one else can understand is alright with me if you find it useful and as long as it cannot be identified with a heretical group or school of thought - which I have not found it to be. However, it comes short of being different enough from the idea of penal substitution to warrant really calling it different and yet you continually act like penal substitution is wrong. This causes difficulty in discussion and really leads to a dead end.

 

[kyredneck]

Ahhh, there you go. Yes, the Serpent bruised his heel, as the instrument in God's hand. Because the veil, that is to say, His flesh, Hebrews 10:20 , was torn by God.

Well, my point is that it certainly was not the spirit of God working within the sons of disobedience that crucified Christ.

 

[JonC]

No. I'm just saying that what you are doing is trying to come up with a distinction that will preserve the idea that satisfaction was involved, and substitution and that Christ died for us. But yet you dance around the obvious implications of what all this means. And in addition, you cannot give any reference to some school of thought that does this that is a recognizable group. Making distinctions that no one else can understand is alright with me if you find it useful and as long as it cannot be identified with a heretical group or school of thought - which I have not found it to be. However, it comes short of being different enough from the idea of penal substitution to warrant really calling it different and yet you continually act like penal substitution is wrong. This causes difficulty in discussion and really leads to a dead end.

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.