37818
Well-Known Member
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.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't support penal substitution (reposted)
- Thread starter Arthur King
- Start date
- Status
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.
No it doesn't.
It means "it is done (finished or completed)".
When applied to a debt it means that the debt is finished.
Today we would say "paid in full" when connected to a financial obligation.
If applied to a military operation τετέλεσται would mean the same (it is done, completed, or finished). Today we'd say "mission complete".
If applied to a journey τετέλεσται means that the journey is done. Garmin would say "you have arrived at your destination".
τετέλεσται can be used to indicate a financial obligation has been met, but it does not mean "paid in full".
With a financial debt, τετέλεσται could also mean that the debt was forgiven or written off rather than being paid at all.
Here is what the verse actually says:
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
You add the last bit.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
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.
I disagree that the passages following go into a different direction, but I get that you are specifically speaking of the description Paul gives of Christ as the One in whom we escape the wrath to come.
I know you are not trying to trick me. You have demonstrated yourself to be an honest person, and I appreciate that.
Did anything happen on the cross that had anything to to with us escaping the wrath to come?
Yes. Jesus became a curse for us, was made sin for us, "shared our infirmity", was persecuted, suffered and died under the power of "evil", "evil doers, "ravenous wolves", the "powers of this world", and "wicked men". This solidarity is essential.
I disagree that Scripture, as the passage I quoted l, obscures. I think you see it that way because of your position. In my view, that passage greatly clarifies - we are forgiven upon repentance (I'm sure we both agree on that as it is stated numerous times in the Bible) but there is still a "wrath to come" (a future wrath). This is Judgment. This is the wrath we escape through our solidarity or unity with Christ.
This wrath is a future event. The lost are condemned already (as were we) and the Judgment is the actual exercise if that judgment (nations separated, the Second Death).
We cannot escape the wrath to come until the wrath comes (it is a future event). God's wrath is not on us now because we are in Christ (again, unity or solidarity) and God's wrath is never on the Righteous.
The reason I say your view does not meet my criteria is you have not provided any verses stating what you believe (stating our differences....that Jesus experienced God's wrath, that God punished Jesus instead of us).
I understand why you believe that is taught by the Bible, but we have to be more careful as that teaching is not in "what is written" (and the human mind is corrupt).
I am not asking for any phrase.
I am saying, outright, that the Bible does not say that (the "that", BTW, should have been your clue...at least if English is your first language) Christ experienced God's wrath or that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.
You are admiring to believing an Atonement theory that is not in the Bible by claiming testing doctrine against Scripture is making demands in God.
That is silly.
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.
Be truthful. I did not call the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement silly
I called saying that requiring a doctrine to be in God's Word making demands on God a silly comment.
We should test all doctrine against Scripture.
Yes, they are. And we have illustrations in the form of agriculture and royal feasts as well.
Arthur King
Active Member
"Jesus saved me from God's wrath, therefore Jesus suffered God's wrath" is a complete non sequitur.
"I saved the child from getting hit by the bus, therefore I necessarily was hit by the bus myself." No, that does not follow at all.
Jesus doesn't save us by having us avoid death or the cross. He says "take up your cross and follow me."
The cross is not the death we avoid dying (that way lies the prosperity gospel). The cross is the death we are called to die.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
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?
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?
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
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.
Good question. We know this is not Christ being literally made into sin (disobedience to God, evil). Men can't even be made into literal sin.
I believe we have to use Scripture to interpret Scripture here, so I think this is the same as Christ be coming a curse for us, taking upon Himself the wages of sin for us.
This is again solidarity (an emphasis of the first three centuries of Church writings).
Arthur King
Active Member
Uh...You did read my Original Post on which this thread is a reply...right?
Jon, you are dancing around God's word, looking for a savior who didn't take your place.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
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.
- Status