Galatians 3 - Christ being made a curse

[DaveXR650]

You ate trying so hard to defend PSA that you see every passage as a threat. I am not talking about PSA. This thread is not about PSA. This topic has nothing to do with PSA.

Of course it has to do with PSA. If Christ was made a curse for us then the fact that he did so has implications. Do we make them up as theories? No. We read the Bible. He was made a curse for us because this cursing was due us. It was actually our curse. There is no other reason for Jesus to become a curse. You're the one always complaining that penal substitution requires punishment of the innocent on behalf of the guilty. In this case it does and the "becoming a curse for us" is a way of explaining it with terminology that would relate to Jews and also to gentiles who were being told to follow the law. But becoming a curse for us is another way of saying he bore our sin in his own body on the tree. It's penal substitution.

You're the one obsessed with PSA. You openly declare it a false gospel and then you follow @Martin Marprelate and myself around on this site, starting threads using our names when we didn't ask you to. Then, you claim I'm obsessed with PSA? If I am then you are certifiable.

 

[DaveXR650]

You have said things that vary significantly from mainstream Reformed theologians.

I'm sure I have, taking them as a whole. And I may be unaware of some of the nuances I'm sure. But I do know the difference between what John Owen meant by sins being propitiated by Christ and Arminius's view. And I know that Grotius governmental theory was in many of his writings quite close to penal substitution whereas later writers interpreting him presented his governmental theory as far more of a deviation. I understand that many Puritan Calvinists did not believe in a limited atonement and most by far have a questionable understanding of limited atonement based on their insistence upon a true, free and real "offer" of salvation to anyone who hears the gospel. I also know that advocates of penal substitution also believe in many other motifs of the atonement and say so in their literature. And I know that scripture as well as the early church fathers expressed it.

I know that none of the various groups of the reformers had a superficial view of sin - and would put them up any day to the theologians you mention as supporting your eclectic mix of thoughts. And I also know that your insistence that my penal substitutionary view is a false gospel comes honest - because at most of the reformers viewed opposition to penal substitution as a damnable heresy, and so do I, if done with a full understanding of the scriptural claims.

But who cares? The mainstream is nominal Christianity (the Way is narrow). And just picking a mainstream group to follow is not biblical.

Try to be consistent with your insults. You can't insist on one post that PSA is a minority view and then in another say it's part of the group going into the "wide gate", which is ridiculous on it's own anyway.

Don't be "of the Reformers". Be "of Christ".

Of course. That's what the Reformers said, quoting scripture all the time. We use names like "reformers" to identify groups for purposes of conversation. If you read the Bible and decide that the Reformers were basically correct - your Bible study conclusions don't become invalid because you identify with a group for purposes of discussion. Sheez!

 

[JonC]

Of course it has to do with PSA. If Christ was made a curse for us then the fact that he did so has implications.

What I mean is it does not have anything to for with PSA specifically as all theories of atonement and Scripture itself holds as important the fact that Christ became a curse for us.

You were just using the verse to hijack this thread to make it about PSA. You are obsessed with your theory.

You can't insist on one post that PSA is a minority view and then in another say it's part of the group going into the "wide gate", which is ridiculous on it's own anyway.

Sure I can. You extracted parts of two arguments (like you do with Scripture) and put them together to create something to argue against.

What I said was PSA is the minority virw within Christianity. That is factual.

BUT I said it is the majority view within Evangelical Christianity.

In the United States and the UK the most popular theory is PSA.

In Mecico and Europe as a whole the most popular theory is Satisfaction theory.

The most constant theory is Ransom theory. But it is a minority theory today.

You have said, several times, that you value holding the most popular view. In Mexico you would have to change your theory to Satisfaction Theory and select theologians who hold that position (there ate actually more scholars who hold Aquinas' position).

You have chosen the, as you out it, "wide gate" because that is what you value.

I do not believe we should pick the most popular view (it is a form of cowardness). We also do not choose the least popular view. We should choose to believe the Bible teaches what it states rather than follow men.

Of course. That's what the Reformers said, quoting scripture all the time. We use names like "reformers" to identify groups for purposes of conversation. If you read the Bible and decide that the Reformers were basically correct - your Bible study conclusions don't become invalid because you identify with a group for purposes of discussion. Sheez!

Stupid statement. Jehovah Witnesses quote Scripture all the time in their writings as well.
It is impossible for any man to read Scripture uninfluenced and come out with a Reformed view. The reason is Reformed theory is dependent on theogical development.

Reformed Theology would not exist if Augustine had not used a Latin mistranslation (the mistranslation was corrected in our Bibles). It would not exist if the Catholic Church had not built on Augustine's conclusion based on that error. It would not exist without Anselm' theory. It would not exist without Aquinas' philosophy of substitution in courts. It would not exist had Calvin not been a law student and part of a secular Renaissance movement trying to revive Greco-Roman jurisprudence. It could not exist before the humanistic movement in the 16th century and it could not have been formed after the 17th century began (the philosophy it uses was a short lived experiment).

Reformed Theology is a product of the Renaissance. It depends on philosophy unique to that period. Once the Enlightenment period came (17th century) the philosophy at the heart of Reformed Theology was abandoned.

Now, the influenced may not realize they are influenced, but that is their own failure. They simply read Reformed Theogy and think it best suits the Bible.

 

[JonC]

You're the one obsessed with PSA.

This is a stupid statement. I do not even believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct.

I am obsessed with the gospel of Christ and our redemption - that is true. And when I discuss the gospel I stick with Scripture and point out where the "broad road" differs.

You are the one who follows me around talking about PSA.

At one time I held the theory, but that was a decade ago. I have absolutely no interest in going through the theory. I believe any person who claims God punished the Just to clear the guilty teach the doctrine of demons because it is the exact opposite of what God describes His justice to be. I have no interest in such foolishness.

 

[DaveXR650]

What I mean is it does not have anything to for with PSA specifically as all theories of atonement and Scripture itself holds as important the fact that Christ became a curse for us.

You were just using the verse to hijack this thread to make it about PSA. You are obsessed with your theory.

So I take it that you were not trying to set up your post #1 and #2 as an attempt to say that Christ only became a curse for Jews (those under the law) and not gentiles, the reason being that this was supposed to set up a scenario where we gentiles who came later could partake in the blessings of Abraham by faith.

@Martin Marprelate brought up this passage on another thread explaining how Christ took on our curse

i want to take the "limiting" factor @Anthony Pritchard suggested - that the biblical text is limiting - and examine the biblical text itself.

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

In other words, when you look at Galatians 3:13 you are not trying to limit Jesus becoming a curse for "us" as being limited to the Jews. Is that correct? And I want to be clear here. The gentiles would be justified by faith, indeed. But was it necessary that Jesus be made a curse for us or did that have nothing to do with us as gentiles, directly?