Penal Substitution Reprised

Both. As 1 Peter 1 would show.

"18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.​

For the innocent to be slain was held - penned up as signifying "on trial" - to prove no discredit could be attached.

Thus our Lord was examined, for the authorities could bring nothing from which to find Him guilty (though they inspected more thoroughly than any sacrifice) and had to be content with bribery and manipulation.

So purity was most certainly a point. Our Lord was pure, without spot, unblemished by the world. (One reason I don't hold that He ingested intoxicants - which is another thread issue).

Also, the nature of His death was a factor. He had to die. The blood had to be shed. He had to endure all that the type and the statements of the OT concerning the suffering messiah would appoint.

The shed blood provides for the forgiveness of sin. (Hebrews)

There is another Scripture that may help in discerning this matter. Typically, this passage is used to support justification by faith (belief), but there is also this subtle thread dealing with sin.

It is found in Romans 3:

21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
​

What is important of this passage to the topic is not only the lack of wrath, but how it was God doing the displaying.

Before, as you remember, all atonement concerning the "mercy seat" took place behind that great, mighty, ceiling to floor, wall to wall, curtain - symbol of the law separating God from man.

But God put His Son on public display. Rending the curtain in half, destroying that mighty wall of law separating Him from us. How? Look again at verse 25: "In His blood."

That blood was shed for ALL, without the wrath of God being displayed.

That blood was shed for ALL, that SOME might be adopted by the Father.

 

Except that there is divine wrath against sin, correct?

 

One must be careful not to assume what God "must" when it comes to God's character, and as a for instance the psalmist states:

38But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity and did not destroy them;
And often He restrained His anger
And did not arouse all His wrath.
​

When it comes to Christ on the Cross, there is no Scripture indication that God was even inclined to wrath, much less that His wrath was poured out upon His Son.

When God confronted Adam, was He filled with wrath, or did they have a conversation concerning what took place?

When Satan appeared before God in Job, was God filled with wrath, or did they have a conversation concerning what Satan had been doing?

When Satan tempted Christ, was Christ filled with wrath, or did they have a conversation about terms and barter?

Strange as it may be, sin does not automatically oblige wrath from God.

 

Adam sinned before the Law was given, so you are skating on thin ice.

PSA/PST - Penal Substitution Atonement/Theory - has no basis in scripture. Christ died for all mankind, paying the ransom necessary to redeem anyone transferred into Christ. So simple and straightforward, so why make it into a jumble?

The ransom paid (the blood of Christ) allows God to forgive and forget the sins of any person transferred into Christ. How do those unsaved pay that debt? (1) They remain separated from God forever, and (2) they are punished for their sins in the afterlife. But when God transfers an individual into Christ, (1) they undergo the circumcision of Christ which removes their debt, no matter how incurred, and (2) they are united with Christ, made alive, born anew, and arise in Christ a new creation. Then having been made firm in Christ, they are indwelt with the Holy Spirit forever.

 

Folks, note the topic, Van's inappropriate behavior. And note, I am charged with not addressing the topic. That is par for the course. See post # 164, and note how different my posts are from those intent on obfuscation.

 

Nope, there was one law. Don't eat of those two trees.

So the Law was present in the Garden.

Well, isn't that is the cause for the thread?

Isn't it proper to actually discuss the issues of PST?

But according to you, you proclaim "no basis in Scripture" - end of discussion.

So, you agree with the Ransom Theory?

Why don't you take that theory and draw some distinctions and contrast the two?

 

Yep, you are so "addressing the topic." NOT!

Look at this response to the topic.

So your own words, again, are shown as proof that you are the one "intent on obfuscation."

You made how many posts before you can point to the one that you actually "address the topic?"

But you don't read to gain any wisdom or understanding, you just read the "first premise" (which was taken from Scriptures) and make wrong judgment.

Go back to that post, lift it, put it into the thread and and actually deal with the facts presented.

Bet you can't.

 

Paul teaches those before Moses were not under the Law, but nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses.
1) No verse says or suggests Adam was given a Law. (Ice breaking underfoot)
2) Yes, the wages of sin (death) reigned from Adam to Moses without the Law. (You are plunging into very cold water)
3) The lost will pay the penalty for sin, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (You need someone to take your hand and pull you up.)

 

Because time is short on this thread, I will try to give brief answers.

If I recall, this statement is made upon the thinking that "forsake" means "abandon."
The statement is found in Matthew and Mark, and points to Psalm 22 which gives a glimpse into the thoughts of our Lord on the Cross.

So to place context to the statements in Mark and Matthew one must look in the Psalm.

In the psalm it is evident that forsake does not mean abandon as one who would discard, but to remain silent, to withhold support.

God never abandoned His Son, but while undergoing all the events of the crucifixion from the last ministering of the angels, to the open door of the tomb, the Father withdrew the sustaining, the support from the Son.

There is no cause in Psalm 22 to consider God abandoning the Son as if He "turned His back" or "cannot look upon sin." Such is excess and not indicated.

I have actually not read much from Wright. Don't care too, and that really applies to any author. I barely get through reading the necessary on the BB.

So, I don't know what Wright says, or anyone else on the matter.

Christ suffered, He died, and rose again. That is the gospel.

The blood, from the prayer in the garden, was sprinkled throughout the way.

Without that blood, there is no forgiveness for any man.

John 3 states that God gave the Son to all men.
Paul and John state that the blood was for all men.

I do not doubt that it was also for the elect if it was for all men.

Because it PLEASED the Father to withhold support that humankind do their worse. (Isaiah 53)

To show to all humankind that they could not destroy Christ, but that He gave Himself over to death. (Recall the statement of the Centurion who was amazed Christ so quickly dead?)

All heaven rejoiced upon seeing the lamb slain (Revelations 5).

Because that is what the Father chose. Could the Sovereign have chosen some other way? Certainly, but this is what He chose.

Just as "it is appointed for man to die, once" so it was appointed for Christ.

Because that was not what God had planned.

The OT is filled with both type and statements concerning the ministry and crucifixion. It is also filled with statements concerning the future.

Christ knew the will of the Father. He took on the form of man to do the will of the Father.

It was no secret, no unintended, and no unattended matter, this crucifixion.

God gave to our Lord personal attention in the garden.

When He had accomplished all necessary of the crucifixion, He is seen before the throne taking the scrolls with all heaven rejoicing and bowing.

It was all and is all well planned by the Father.

Nothing is left unplanned, not even the appointed time of death.