Featured 2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't support penal substitution (reposted)

τετέλεσται meaning "paid in full." Death of His soul was paid to Christ. This Greek form is only used twice in the NT.
He is both the the man and God the Creator, Hebrews 1:3. As the man He was paid from God His Father.

 

You agree that we are by nature the children of wrath. And you agree that Jesus rescues us from the wrath to come.

OK. This is where I thought this would go. We are naturally under wrath but we escape it when the wrath comes. This is followed by a verse that kind of goes off in a different direction. That has nothing to do with the question at hand. In your opinion, did anything happen on the cross that had anything to to with us escaping the wrath to come. If so, what do you think happened?

I'm not trying to trick you here. I agree that the exact sequence of things that were involved in making it possible for our reconciliation are not spelled out to us in a doctrinal form, in a concise manner. But what I am saying you are doing is this:
You make a demand for scripture that explains all aspects of atonement in one place. You dismiss scripture that brings out 1 aspect at a time and those that put it together as not being "biblicists". You bring out other verses which do nothing but obscure the subject like above.

Once again, if we escape the wrath to come, since we are dealing with the Almighty, I assume that means that he is no longer "wrathful" towards us. Would that be fair or is that unbiblical? Is there any other way to escape the consequences of God's wrath other than that God is no longer feeling wrath towards us? If he doesn't then what was it that happened? "When the wrath comes" is a non answer because the judgment is when the consequences happen - the wrath was there all along.

 

There is no need to force God to use your demanded phrase. All I need to do is show you Christ as our substitute.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. (1 Peter 3:18)
Substitution

He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. (Hebrews 7:27)
Substitution

For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
(Romans 6:10)
Substitution

Perhaps your problem is that you are demanding God use exact terms or you won't believe that Jesus is your substitute.

 

The Penal Substitution Theory is not silly. It is the most widely held view of the Atonement in the Evangelical world.

Calling it silly does not make it less valid. It makes you look silly.

 

Matthew 17:24; Romans 13:6. Both financial obligations.

 

Arthur. No, it doesn't mean you necessarily have to be hit by the bus. But there are situations you could make up where it would be necessary that one die in another's place. The question is not if you can make up a scenario to fit your view. What if the plane is going down and there are 3 parachutes and 4 people so you give yours up. The question I have, based on what you just said is "do you believe that the cross was of any direct salvific value to us besides being an example of what we should do as a disciple.

Did Jesus on the cross do anything for us as to our sin? Every one of us is going to die physically, and everyone still does, even after Christ's ascension. No one has suggested we can avoid that. No one is suggesting that we don't in a symbolic way, take up our cross and follow Jesus. But once again, is there more to this than giving us an example to follow?

 

How, in your own words, would you explain a statement like "was made sin for us"? I know you believe this is Biblical, from previous conversations.

 

Arthur. Same question as post 155. I am not sure you and Jon are on the same page. What would you say that phrase means?

 

Jon, you are dancing around God's word, looking for a savior who didn't take your place.

 

I agree. Now, I'm not going to demand that you name this as I do but to me, there is no logical leap in saying that Jesus taking upon Himself the wages of sin for us is substitutionary in the sense that for me as an individual, he was taking upon Himself the wages of my sin too.

Now, like you said earlier, I don't believe either that Jesus was made literally evil, but what he took upon himself was the wages of sin and like you said "for us". In Acts 10:43 it is said that whoever believes in Him can have remission of sins. I think there are plenty of verses that tie in the believing in Jesus and getting sins remitted. Now, could he do this without the cross? We can again go to scripture and there are verses bringing out the connection between God's willing to be just in doing all this and it is explicitly stated in Romans 3:21-26 that this occurs because of the work of Jesus as a propitiation.

Personally, I think there is enough right there for the term penal substitution. If you are willing to let "propitiation" mean propitiation in the passage from Romans above the argument is over, in my opinion.

I just want to say that the scripture is there but it's there for each step. I think that is a perfectly legitimate method when forming a theological concept.