Featured Punishment in the Atonement

Pretty much.

 

Burnt, Peace, and Meat offerings were not offered for sin, and no one needs to cite the heathen to know that, but the Sin and Trespass offerings were offered for sin, and in those, the individual offers for his sins, not those of someone else. The victim in each one, is Christ.

 

Did the individual who sinned have to bring sacrifice for his own sin? Or did he just wait for the Day of Atonement? Did that sacrifice cover his own sin, or also the sin of his neighbor?

I think it's elementary.

 

Again you are attributing human logic and reasoning to God e.g. "But if Jesus did experience all of those things, then he ceased being God" Well so say you Jon but not necessarily God. Or "You either have to concede that Jesus suffered punishment for our sins rather than our punishment for our sins" No I don't and I don't .

HankD

 

Again, again, human logic and reason, no scripture quoted, and/or no exegesis thereof.

HankD

 

I never said anything different! I said God's wrath was not a PERSONAL vendetta against Christ. God was pleased with Christ PERSONALLY in all that he did - all! However, on the cross he did suffer the wrath of God, meaning he was the object of God's wrath, not due to PERSONAL sin but to his LEGAL POSITION in the place of sinners. You don't seem to grasp the difference between PERSONAL and POSITIONAL but the wrath is the same and comes from the same source - God.

You are picking and choosing here! It is not this or that but BOTH. Of course Christ was "obedient unto death" even the death of the cross. However, it was his "travail" that "satisfied" God's wrath upon him as a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE, who stood in the POSITION of sinners and suffered the wrath of God in their behalf.

No, there was complete "darkness" on the cross. There was complete separation from God "My God, My God why hast thou FORSAKEN ME." The severity of physical pain was as much any any human could be subjected unto in the lake of fire. Christ was God, infinite and eternal which made his suffering infinite and eternal.


,

You think there is TWO kinds of wrath? One which is an expression of love and another which is an expression of hatred???????? Christ experienced the wrath of God against His own person as a LEGAL OBJECT of wrath in the place of sinners - meaning his own person endured the wrath of God against sinners and sin. Again, it was not PERSONAL in the sense that sin was found in his own person, but it was LEGAL because His own person was being "made sin" POSITIONALLY and LEGALLY as a SUBSTITUTE.

Your line of reasoning is oxymornonic. The punishment is death and death begins at birth with sickness, pain, abuse,that succumbs in physical death, then separation of the spirit in hades, while the body is in the grave, then resurrection unto complete and final separation of spirit, soul, and body in Gehenna in fire and darkness forever.

Again, you are picking and choosing. You can't deny he suffered pain, abuse, and physical death. On the cross, he suffered spiritual separation as a man from God, he suffered the most severe pain, he suffered in darkness and he physically suffered spiritual separation from his body. His suffering as infinite God united with humanity has a VALUE that when God saw "the travail of his soul shall be SATISFIED." That VALUE equaled an eternity of lost humans in Gehenna, because this was the Son of God suffering as a SINLESS but INFINITE substitute.

If that is so, then he is no PENAL SUBSTITUTE as "penal" with regard to sinners is determined by Law to be condemnation unto death in all of its extent. Your view denies that! Your view even denies that Christ is a substitute UNDER LAW and thus cannot be a substitute of the CONDEMNATION of the Law. You have invented another penalty that has no basis in the law, no relationship to the condemnation of the Law. You are in reality repudiating both PENAL and SUBSTITIONARY atonement as your view has NO RELAITONSHIP to either as both are INSEPARABLY related to each THROUGH LAW.

The truth is,it is not this or that but BOTH - He was punished "for our sins" and "with our punishment" as both "sins" and "punishment" are defined by the same LAW which your view repudiates, thus repudiating the whole doctrine of penal substitution as the doctrine of penal substitution HAS NO EXISTENCE APART FROM LAW AS IT IS THE INSEPARABLE CONSEQUENCE OF LAW.

 

My all capitals bold blue is meant to scream emphasis as this is the real issue here. Jon's view is a repudiation of penal substitutionary atonement BECAUSE both "penal" and "substitute" have absolutely no meaning apart from THE LAW and Jon rejects the law as the basis for either. It is the Law that calls for PENAL consequences, and defines them as "penal" but John removes the law thus removing all grounds for PENAL consequences as well as repudiating any reason to call it "penal" consequences. It is the condemnation of the Law against sinners that must be satisfied but John removes the law with regard to satisfaction. Jon's view logically repudiates any kind of "penal" atonement as his view repudiates the very thing that demands it is penal - the law.

His view repudiates "substitution" as he has Christ doing something that has no relationship to the condemnation against the sinner. The sinner will be suffering the consequences of THE LAW's condemnation which is the PENAL part. However, Jon's view has Christ suffering without any LEGAL basis whatsoever, as he repudiates the Law is involved thus has Christ suffering no PENAL consequences because he repudiates what makes "penal" to be "penal" which is the condemnation by THE LAW.

Also, Jon's view CHANGES the law's penal consequences to something other than what the Law prescribed. Thus the sinner is suffering something quite different than what He has Jesus suffering - hence, repudiating any kind of "substitution" as one cannot be called a "substitute" if they are not dealing with the same penal condemnation.

 

Jon, your version of "substitutionary" atonement is more like "substitute" for cream for coffee, something DIFFERENT IN THE PLACE OF, rather than a different person in the place of the sinner. You have Christ suffering differently, without any LEGAL cause, without any LEGAL definition or consequence as you totally repudiate any basis for any LEGAL condemnation of sin or sinners as Christ in your view has no relationship to either the just basis for their condemnation or satisfaction of the just basis for their condemnation. Indeed, your view cannot be called "penal" as that requires a LEGAL consequence for violating Law and you repudiate the law with regard to Christs satisfaction of sin and consequences against sinners.

You want to juxtapose "for sin" against "for sinners' when BOTH are included and the repudiation of one is repudiation of BOTH as they are inseparably related to each other and to THE LAW. You have a lawless "penal" consequences, and a lawless substitution as both are inseparable from the Law and its condemnation of sin and the sinner.

 

Jesus is one with the father, no contest - but He can and has been the object of the father's wrath and still remained one with the father.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Jesus is capable of time compression...
Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

If He wants to suffer an infinite amount in a moment time He, being God, is capable.
But in fact it was finite because the number of the human race is finite.

Even as a human being He had no limitation(s) in power and ability.

John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

True, in Him there is no sin, never was, never will be.

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.

This is the power of God, to be made to have an identity with sin yet able to remain holy and without the knowledge of sin, a divine paradox revealed through the apostle Paul. Note - this was for our benefit that we might be made the righteousness of God.

HankD

 

That was when Jesus experienced the feeling of being forsaken by His Father, as God wrath was poured out upon His own Son, who became the sin bearer, and tasted hell on the Cross...

Jesus never ceased to be God, and was still with the Gather in His deity, but in His Humanity, did feel what sinners will under judgement of God wrath!

 

Here is where your theory completely breaks down. You have never been able to respond to the evidence I have repeatedly placed before you about this very point. If you have replied, I have never read it.
Romans 3:21 expressly teaches that the Law is the manifestation of God's own personal righteousness. That is precisely why we find universal terms are used in Romans 3:9-20 with reference to "the Law" of God.

1. Both Gentiles and Jews - v. 9
2. "none....all...none....all.... - vv. 10-23
3. "all the world....no flesh...every mouth" - vv. 19-20

It is universal not because the Law was given to Gentiles but because it reveals God's own moral nature as Creator over "all the world..every mouth".

Furthermore, the law can be reduced to one MORAL value - love just as God can be summarized by one MORAL value - Love, just as God can be summarized by one MORAL value - LOVE. Therefore the Law is the written MANIFESTATION of God's own righteousness just as Paul says in Romans 3:21 and in other places.

But this is the just the tip of the iceberg concerning your problems with rejecting the Law as the revelation of God's nature.

1. The term "penal" has no meaning apart from LAW - nothing!!
2. There is no "condemnation" apart from LAW and therefore there is NOTHING to base a "penal" or "substitutionary" atonement upon.
3. Your view defines "substitutionary" as we would define "cream substitute" in the place of real cream thus wholly contrary in nature to cream. Moreover, your view would repudiate any penal consequences as "substitutionary" in value as you repudiate what defines such as consequences, and what defines such as penal and therefore the need for substitution at all.

 

Jesus in His deity could never physically die, but he did physical die as being a Man also!