Without Christ's Substitutionary Death, There Could Be No Gospel

[KenH]

God as the one who punishes Christ.

He did.

From Isaiah 53:4 "smitten of God"

From Isaiah 53:6 "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"

From Isaiah 53:10 "it pleased the LORD to bruise him"

From Isaiah 53:10 "he hath put him to grief"

From Isaiah 53:10 "thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin"

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But PSA takes a liberal approach to Scripture.

With you I am never quite sure what is a spelling mistake and what isn't, but if you meant to say that PSA takes a literal approach to Scripture, I completely agree with you.
For the rest, I am quite happy to let others read the verses and see what is so very clearly portrayed there.

 

[JonC]

With you I am never quite sure what is a spelling mistake and what isn't, but if you meant to say that PSA takes a literal approach to Scripture, I completely agree with you.
For the rest, I am quite happy to let others read the verses and see what is so very clearly portrayed there.

Lol... I trust my phone (was not wearing my glasses).


I believe the passages you offered (with the inclusion of the surrounding verses). I disagree with what you add to some passages and how you resist allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

For example, you seem to think that the language "Jesus bears our sins" dictates the addition of "instead of", but obviously we bearing one anothers sorrows means "with".

Spiritual knowledge is not knowing teachings hidden somewhere beneath God's words. Spiritual knowledge is the work of the Spirit in revealing to us the truth of God's words.

Your theory, just like any of the many theories about what the Bible really teaches, is just human philosophy. It is purely subjective, based on the secular ideas of men who reject "what is written" in favor of what they think is taught.

God's words are true. Therefore your theory is false.

 

[KenH]

For example, you seem to think that the language "Jesus bears our sins" dictates the addition of "instead of", but obviously we bearing one anothers sorrows means "with".

So what do you think, according to your theory, was accomplished at the cross?

God's words are true. Therefore your theory is false.

Yes, God's Word is true. Your theory, JonC, is a false teaching, as has been proven in this thread by using God's Word, the Bible.

Man's reconcilation to God through Christ.

How?

This is what I mean by the natural man being unable to understand spiritual things. You quickly dismiss God's words and regurgitate man's philosophy in its stead.

I quoted quite a few verses from the Bible. You, are the other hand, just come on here and throw brickbats at the teachings of the Bible on the atonement.

 

[JonC]

So what do you think, according to your theory, was accomplished at the cross?

Man's reconcilation to God through Christ.

Yes, God's Word is true. Your theory, JonC, is a false teaching, as has been proven in this thread by using God's Word, the Bible.

Yet when we look at our posts, my "false view" is God's words and your "correct view" is nowhere in the biblical text.

This is what I mean by the natural man being unable to understand spiritual things. You quickly dismiss God's words and regurgitate man's philosophy in its stead.

How?

Christ entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. The blood of Christ cleanses our consciences from acts that lead to death.

I quoted quite a few verses from the Bible. You, are the other hand, just come on here and throw brickbats at the teachings of the Bible on the atonement.

You did offer a few verses. The problem is the verses you offered did not support your theory.

You gave some verses and then ignored the words of those verses to tell us what you think those verses really mean because you are unable to accept what the verses actually state.

The natural man simply cannot comprehend spiritual truths. I cannot make you understand what is beyond your grasp.

 

[KenH]

Christ entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

And in doing so, He paid the total sin debt of God's elect, which the Old Testament type indicated.

You did offer a few verses. The problem is the verses you offered did not support your theory.

I offered no "theory". What I showed you is Biblical truth.

You gave some verses and then ignored the words of those verses

I did no such thing. I showed you Biblical truth.

Again, I understand this is your theory about what the Bible really teaches.

I hold to no mere "theory". I showed you Biblical truth.

if that were true you would have simply quoted God

I did simply quote from God's Word. In my post #20:

"Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely he hath 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 upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:8 For the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:11 He shall bear their iniquities.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:12 He bare the sin of many.

Furthermore,

1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

(emphasis mine)

Look at the verses you provided and then what you claimed was really being taught. You might as well have written "Jesus wept" followed by how you think God punished the Just to clear the guilty.

Sounds like you are basically saying in regards to the Biblical teaching of Christ paying the sin debt of God's elect, "If I was God, that's not the way I would have done it."

You want to substitute your mere reasonings in your own mind to replace Biblical truths.

For example, I believe that it is not good to punish the just. I test this against God's words - "Also to punish the just is not good" (Proverbs 17, kjv). I know my belief is correct.

As I said you don't like what the Bible teaches about Christ paying the sin debt of God's elect, so you substitute your man-concocted theory that is patently false.

But that doesn't not support your theory.

I have no "theory". I have showed you Biblical truth.

What I am calling your theory

I have no "theory". I have showed you Biblical truth.

those theories are not in God's Word.

The Biblical teaching that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect is not a theory. It is Biblical teaching, as I have proven on this thread.

 

[JonC]

And in doing so, He paid the total sin debt of God's elect, which the Old Testament type indicated.

Again, I understand this is your theory about what the Bible really teaches. Others hold different theories.

My point is your theory is not in the Bible. The only reason for a person to accept any of these theories is a spiritual inability to grasp God's own words.

The natural man cannot understand that which is spiritual so they form theories to help them understand reality. Some of these theories are Christian themed. They have a form of godliness. But they are poor substitutes for God's words.

Christians, on the other hand, have spiritual life. The Spirit guides them - NOT to discover new "truths" excluded from the biblical text but to grasp "what is written".

 

[JonC]

I did no such thing. I showed you Biblical truth.

Lol.... if that were true you would have simply quoted God (like I did) and not carry on trying to explain what is "really" taught by the Bible.

What you do not understand is the truth that God's own words are what the Bible teaches. To those of us who are "spiritually alive" God's words need do not require any theories.

Look at the verses you provided and then what you claimed was really being taught. You might as well have written "Jesus wept" followed by how you think God punished the Just to clear the guilty.

 

[JonC]

I have no "theory". I showed you Biblical truth.

What you need to understand if you want to discuss your ideas with Christians is that we hold God's Word as the Standard for our doctrine. This is an objective standard.

For example, I believe that it is not good to punish the just. I test this against God's words - "Also to punish the just is not good" (Proverbs 17, kjv). I know my belief is correct.

You gave me a subjective theory. You can only pass the test if you test your theory against what men you agree with teach.

 

[JonC]

I did simply quote from God's Word. In my post #20:

"Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely he hath 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 upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:8 For the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:11 He shall bear their iniquities.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:12 He bare the sin of many.

Furthermore,

1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

(emphasis mine)

But that doesn't not support your theory.


We all agree Christ borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.

We know those men viewed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (they crucified Him, after all).

We know instead of being "smitten by God" He was wounded for our transgressions, was bruised for our iniquities.

We know the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

We all agree the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.


We all agree it was for the transgression of God's people was He stricken.

We all agree it pleased the LORD to bruise him; puttting Him to grief.

Every Christisn believes He bore our iniquities.

We all know that we were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.


You provide passages we woukd all agree with - like clearing the guilty and punishing the innocent are abominations to God; and like it being wrong to punish the just.


What I am calling your theory is the philosophy you say is "really" taught by the Bible but is nowhere in God's Word.

 

[JonC]

Sounds like you are basically saying in regards to the Biblical teaching of Christ paying the sin debt of God's elect, "If I was God, that's not the way I would have done it."

You want to substitute your mere reasonings in your own mind to replace Biblical truths.

No. I was fine with PSA and Calvinism. The reason I abandoned them is those theories are not in God's Word. I do not believe God failed in revealing Himself and His redemption in His Word.

Instead I believe that the Bible teaches "what is wtitten". You are trying hard to grasp what is impossible for you to understand.

 

[JonC]

I have no "theory". I have showed you Biblical truth.

You did give biblical truth in the passages you provided. That was great. But then you negated those passages by providing yoyr theory.

It was like you said "this is what God said..." immediately followed by "but ignore all that nonsense. This is what God really meant yo say...".

The Biblical teaching that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect is not a theory. It is Biblical teaching, as I have proven on this thread.

If that were true then you would be able to state it without using a theory (you would simply quote God saying "Christ laid the total debt of God's elect".

But you cannot provide a verse because such a verse does not exist. You cannot grasp the spiritual (God's words) so you settle for what you thibk is the next best thing - theories about what the Bible teaches.

As I mentioned in my post #23 above, I will not be surprised if it is only a matter of time before you start claiming that the Biblical teaching about the Trinity of the Godhead is false because the precise word, "Trinity", is not found in the Biblical text.

Lol....That is an asinine claim. It shows you do not grasp even the basics of doctrine.

I am not saying the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is unbiblical because "Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement" is not in the biblical text. I am saying the doctrine itself is a theory that some believe is really taught by the Bible.

Likewise, for the Trinity to be biblical we do not look for the word "Trinity" but the doctrine (God is One, the Spirit is God's Spirit, Jesus and the Father are One).


Your theory, however, is no better or worse than the theories of any other sect that holds the Bible teaches something other than the biblical text. Your theory is subjective by definition.

I have no theory. I have showed you Biblical truth, given Biblical proof that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

No. You did not show any Biblical truth that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect. You simply repeated your theory that this is what the Bible really teaches. Yet that theory is foreign to the biblical text.

In the Bible there is no "sin debt". There was a "certificate of debt" (the Mosaic Law) and when Christ showed His disciples how to pray He included asking God to forgive their transgressions (debts under the Mosaic Law) as they forgive those who transgress against them.

But there is no "sin debt" that needs to be paid. Biblically transgressions are not something one can pay. They are wrongs that can be forgiven or punished.

Biblically the "elect" are those who believe (not those who will believe). I get your logic here, but it is still a theory as the Bible does not support your conclusions (human logic can fail).

You have determined that it is imposdible for God's words to mean those actual words. The natural man cannot grasp spiritual things, period.

 

[KenH]

But then you negated those passages by providing yoyr theory.

I have no theory. I have showed you Biblical truth, given Biblical proof that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

If that were true then you would be able to state it without using a theory

I did not use a theory. I used Biblical truth.

you would simply quote God saying "Christ laid the total debt of God's elect".

As I mentioned in my post #23 above, I will not be surprised if it is only a matter of time before you start claiming that the Biblical teaching about the Trinity of the Godhead is false because the precise word, "Trinity", is not found in the Biblical text.

You cannot grasp the spiritual (God's words) so you settle for what you thibk is the next best thing - theories

I do not teach theories. I have proven using the Biblical text that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect at the cross.

Your theory

I have no theory about the atonement. I have proven using the Biblical text that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect at the cross.

Likewise, for the Trinity to be biblical we do not look for the word "Trinity" but the doctrine

And the doctrine that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect at the cross is in the Bible.

No. You did not show any Biblical truth that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

Yes. I did.

You simply repeated your theory

I did not repeat a theory. I have proved using the Biblical text that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect at the cross.

In the Bible there is no "sin debt".

Yes, there is. Just as there is the "Trinity" in the Bible.

Then don't theorize.

I didn't.

 

[JonC]

And the doctrine that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect at the cross is in the Bible.

Then don't theorize. Just provide a verse stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect without you adding to it what you think it really teaches.

Yes. I did.

Then don't theorize. Just provide a verse stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect without you adding to it what you think it really teaches.

And the doctrine that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect at the cross is in the Bible.

Then don't theorize. Just provide a verse stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect without you adding to it what you think it really teaches.

I did not repeat a theory. I have proved using the Biblical text that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect at the cross.

Then don't theorize. Just provide a verse stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect without you adding to it what you think it really teaches.

I have no theory about the atonement. I have proven using the Biblical text that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect at the cross.

Then don't theorize. Just provide a verse stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect without you adding to it what you think it really teaches.

I didn't.

Then don't theorize. Just provide a verse stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect without you adding to it what you think it really teaches.

I have no theory. I have showed you Biblical truth, given Biblical proof that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

Then don't theorize. Just provide a verse stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect without you adding to it what you think it really teaches.

I have no "theory". I showed you Biblical truth.

Then don't theorize. Just provide a verse stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect without you adding to it what you think it really teaches.

 

[KenH]

Just provide a verse stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect without you adding to it what you think it really teaches.

Repeating my post #20 from above:

"Sin debt" is not an "alternate theory". It is solid Biblical teaching. Even we humans use the term for those who break law administered by man. Have you ever heard of paying one's debt to society in describing enduring the punishment for breaking law administered by man?

Furthermore,

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

A ransom is a payment.

Furthermore,

Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely he hath 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 upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:8 For the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:11 He shall bear their iniquities.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:12 He bare the sin of many.

Furthermore,

1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

To redeem something is to buy it back.

I have now shown that the Bible teaches that it was God the Father who placed the punishment for the sin debt of His elect upon God the Son to redeem them, or buy them back, from the justice that they were deserving of, and God's justice being satisfied in God the Son's perfect life lived and willing sacrifice offered in the stead of God's elect.

God the Son had the power to do ALL of this.
God the Son was willing to do ALL of this.
God the Son accomplished ALL of this.

God does not just overlook sin, He does not just wave His hand and clear the guilty(Exodus 34:7). The sins of God's elect and their guilt was imputed to Christ, He satisfied God's justice, and His perfect righteousness was imputed to God's elect.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

(emphasis mine)

If so, then stop theorizing.

I never started theorizing in this thread. Thus, I can't stop doing something that I have not started doing.

If it is not a theory then you would be able to provide an actual verse ("what is written", God's words, the biblical text) stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

I will not be surprised if it is only a matter of time before you start claiming that the Biblical teaching about the Trinity of the Godhead is false because the precise word, "Trinity", is not found in the Biblical text.

None of the verses you have provided so far confirms your theory.

I have no theory. The verses I provided proved from the Bible that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

 

[JonC]

"Sin debt" is not an "alternate theory". It is solid Biblical teaching. Even we humans use the term for those who break law administered by man. Have you ever heard of paying one's debt to society in describing enduring the punishment for breaking law administered by man?

Furthermore,

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

A ransom is a payment.

Furthermore,

Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely he hath 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 upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:8 For the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:11 He shall bear their iniquities.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:12 He bare the sin of many.

Furthermore,

1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

To redeem something is to buy it back.

I have now shown that the Bible teaches that it was God the Father who placed the punishment for the sin debt of His elect upon God the Son to redeem them, or buy them back, from the justice that they were deserving of, and God's justice being satisfied in God the Son's perfect life lived and willing sacrifice offered in the stead of God's elect.

God the Son had the power to do ALL of this.
God the Son was willing to do ALL of this.
God the Son accomplished ALL of this.

God does not just overlook sin, He does not just wave His hand and clear the guilty(Exodus 34:7). The sins of God's elect and their guilt was imputed to Christ, He satisfied God's justice, and His perfect righteousness was imputed to God's elect.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

(emphasis mine)

If so, then stop theorizing.

Nobody is saying Christ failed to redeem us, failed to purchase us.


This was your theory - "Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect."

If it is not a theory then you would be able to provide an actual verse ("what is written", God's words, the biblical text) stating that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.


None of the verses you have provided so far confirms your theory.

@KenH

I see you are struggling. Here is what I mean.

I believe that is wrong to punish the just.

Proverbs 17 states "it is wrong to punish the just".

Therefore it being wring to punish the just is a biblical truth. It is objective. It is a line not to be crossed when developing any understanding.


Do that with your theory.

1. You theorize that "Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect."

2. Respond with the passage(s) that objectively state that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

I will not be surprised if it is only a matter of time before you start claiming that the Biblical teaching about the Trinity of the Godhead is false because the precise word, "Trinity", is not found in the Biblical text.

I would be more concerned that you do not find the Trinity and Godhead in the actual text of Scripture.

 

[KenH]

Do that with your theory.

I have no theory. I have proven from the Bible that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

 

[JonC]

@KenH

Since you openly reject God's Word as the authority for your faith - for doctrine - what exactly do you consider the standard? Is it your pastor, or some Reformed writers?

I ask because normally when a Christian defends their position they do so by remaining silent and simply providing a passage stating their belief.

That is what I did when a member challenged the idea that making atonement cleanses. I simply provided a verse stating that atonement cleanses.

 

[KenH]

I would be more concerned that you do not find the Trinity and Godhead in the actual text of Scripture.

I certainly do find the Trinity and the Godhead in the Bible. You are the one who apparently won't believe what the Bible teaches unless certain "precise words" are in it that you have decided must be there.

I have no theory. I have proven using that Bible the Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

Kid

I am nearing 71 years old. How dare you call me a "kid".

Since you openly reject God's Word as the authority for your faith - for doctrine

I look to the Bible for doctrine, certainly not to men, certainly not to you.

 

[JonC]

I have no theory. I have proven from the Bible that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

You are merely having a temper tantrum because you cannot find any passages stating your theory.

Kid, that is exactly why it is called a "theory".

I certainly do find the Trinity and the Godhead in the Bible. You are the one who apparently won't believe what the Bible teaches unless certain "precise words" are in it that you have decided must be there.

Lol.... that is childish.

Just provide the verse that states that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect, regardless of the words used. We can examine the words individually if needed to see their possible meanings.

I am nearing 71 years old. How dare you call me a "kid".

I meant behavior, not physical age. You are acting like a child. So I refer to you as "kid".

Just provide the verse that states that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect, regardless of the words used. We can examine the words individually if needed to see their possible meanings.

I look to the Bible for doctrine, certainly not to men, certainly not to you.

Ok...then just provide the verse that states that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect, regardless of the words used.

We can examine the words individually if needed to see their possible meanings.

I have no theory. I have proven using that Bible the Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

Just provide the verse that states that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect, regardless of the words used. We can examine the words individually if needed to see their possible meanings.

"Sin debt" is not an "alternate theory". It is solid Biblical teaching. Even we humans use the term for those who break law administered by man. Have you ever heard of paying one's debt to society in describing enduring the punishment for breaking law administered by man?

Furthermore,

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

A ransom is a payment.

Furthermore,

Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely he hath 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 upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:8 For the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:11 He shall bear their iniquities.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:12 He bare the sin of many.

Furthermore,

1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

To redeem something is to buy it back.

I have now shown that the Bible teaches that it was God the Father who placed the punishment for the sin debt of His elect upon God the Son to redeem them, or buy them back, from the justice that they were deserving of, and God's justice being satisfied in God the Son's perfect life lived and willing sacrifice offered in the stead of God's elect.

God the Son had the power to do ALL of this.
God the Son was willing to do ALL of this.
God the Son accomplished ALL of this.

God does not just overlook sin, He does not just wave His hand and clear the guilty(Exodus 34:7). The sins of God's elect and their guilt was imputed to Christ, He satisfied God's justice, and His perfect righteousness was imputed to God's elect.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

(emphasis mine)

A lot here is correct, but you are still theorizing with parts. Lets look at it.

1. Yes, Christ ransomed us from the bondage of sin and death.

2. Yes, God laid our iniquity on Him, He shared our infirmity, He was made sin for us, He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, He shated our humanity, He bore our sins bodily.

3. Yes, God's wrath is upon the wicked continually, God will not clear the guilty, God will not punish the Just, God will not punish the Innocent, the one who sins shall die.

BUT none of those passages state your theory.

You said "Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect". That is a subjective clusion...and hopefully not from the verses you provided as the verses have nothing to do with your theory.

I was asking you to provide the verse that states that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect, regardless of the words used.

We can examine the words individually if needed to see their possible meanings.

How dare you call me a "kid". I am nearly 71 years old.

Well...yea... Obviously you are elderly. You probably do not realize it, but keep repeating yourself.

I was speaking of behavior.