Biblical Penal Substitution

[JonC]

Which post? Was it two names, or two relevant quotations?

You gave me one that you think speaks of Christ in that way, which is not the same as saying you gave me one. I have told you why I think it you are wrong and I now wait for you to reply to that.

I'm going to take a short break and explore the LXX for a bit to see what I can turn up.

You can look through them and see, but it is not important.

Here is why -

In Romans Paul says that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as an offering for sin.

That is what I believe.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You can look through them and see, but it is not important.

Here is why -

In Romans Paul says that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as an offering for sin.

That is what I believe.

What I believe is that in Romans Paul says that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin. I have explained my reasons for that.

 

[percho]

You have actually done neither. You have told me that there are such people, but you haven't told me what they say. I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, but as you are not prepared to take the word of Spurgeon et al, even when they are quoted to you, I am not prepared to accept some guy who you say supports you without seeing the quote. Even then, they will have to address the points I have made

I think you'll find I can. And I shall continue to do so until you provide some credible evidence that I'm wrong.

Well of course it does say exactly that. He was made sin; we are made righteousness. How are we made righteousness? By imputation. '....The ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing [Gk. logizomai, 'reckon,' 'impute'] their trespasses to them......' (v.19). So how was Christ made sin? By imputation. Here's Charles Hodge:
He was made sin, we are made 'righteousness.' The only sense in which we are made the righteousness of God is that we are in Christ regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in which He was made sin, is that He was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with His being in Himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly. In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us.'

Firstly, that is an utterly ridiculous way of carrying on a discussion on a discussion forum. Secondly, I have been at enormous pains to explain how I support my views. Just read this thread!!

Romans 8:3, NKJV. 'For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh. The KJV and ESV translate similarly. I will concede that the NIV translation is possible, as it would not be in 2 Cor 5:21, because hamartia is in the genitive, but I do not think it's correct, because I don't see how a sin offering condemns sin in the flesh (c.f. Hebrews 10:11). Christ came because of sin. If there had been no sin, God would not have sent Him. And it was in His flesh that God condemned and punished the sins of His people.

[/QUOTE]


I agree with you.

I believe the same concept is seen in Heb 2:9

He was made a little lower than the angels, because the death existed, lower than the angels that he might taste death, die for us.

He who knew no sin was made sin, therefore, he gave his life. That put his like in the hands of the Father.

 

[JonC]

What I believe is that in Romans Paul says that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin. I have explained my reasons for that.

Romans 8:3
For what the Law could not do, weak b as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.

I am not arguing against your translation. I am, however, arguing against your insistence that all other interpretations (and here the NASB) us grammatically impossible.

Just defend your view of your position and I will mine.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Romans 8:3
For what the Law could not do, weak b as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.

I am not arguing against your translation. I am, however, arguing against your insistence that all other interpretations (and here the NASB) us grammatically impossible.

Just defend your view of your position and I will mine.

'For what the Law could not do, weak b as it was through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.'
I have done. See my posts #144 and, particularly #151.

 

[JonC]

'For what the Law could not do, weak b as it was through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.'
I have done. See my posts #144 and, particularly #151.

You choose one translation (NKJV) over others. That does not mean the NASB, NIV, and HCSV offer grammatically impossible translations. The KJV and the ESV tells us God sent Christ "for sin", and the NET "concerning sin" (which is as a sin offering if Christ is the propitiation for sin).

My point is not my view is correct and yours us wrong. My point is you are wrong that Christ being a sin offering is an impossible translation and there is no need to even go there.

Even if it should read "on acvount of sin" this would not make PSA correct. We all believe Christ died for/ on acvount of/ concerning/ and because of sin.

Why squabble about the translations of a word when it does not even prove the topic at hand?

 

[percho]

having known that, not with corruptible things -- silver or gold -- were ye redeemed from your foolish behaviour delivered by fathers, (Adam) but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted -- Christ's -- foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested (In the likeness of sinful flesh) in the last times because of you, 1 Peter 1:18-20

he who is doing the sin, of the devil he is, because from the beginning the devil doth sin; for this was the Son of God manifested, (In the likeness of sinful flesh) that he may break up the works of the devil; 1 John 3:8 YLT
Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, (In the likeness of sinful flesh) that through death he might destroy him having the power of death -- that is, the devil -- Heb 2:14 YLT

because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; Rom 5:12 YLT

Can you all not see, before the foundation of the world, who and whose sin and whose works was going to be condemned in the flesh?

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, (singular Adam) that thou art mindful of him? or the Son of Man, (singular Christ) that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You choose one translation (NKJV) over others. That does not mean the NASB, NIV, and HCSV offer grammatically impossible translations. The KJV and the ESV tells us God sent Christ "for sin", and the NET "concerning sin" (which is as a sin offering if Christ is the propitiation for sin).

My point is not my view is correct and yours us wrong. My point is you are wrong that Christ being a sin offering is an impossible translation and there is no need to even go there.

Even if it should read "on account of sin" this would not make PSA correct. We all believe Christ died for/ on account of/ concerning/ and because of sin.

Why squabble about the translations of a word when it does not even prove the topic at hand?

You may want to read again what I wrote earlier, because you don't seem to have understood it.

Romans 8:3, NKJV. 'For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh. The KJV and ESV translate similarly. I will concede that the NIV translation is possible, as it would not be in 2 Cor 5:21, because hamartia is in the genitive, but I do not think it's correct, because I don't see how a sin offering condemns sin in the flesh (c.f. Hebrews 10:11). Christ came because of sin. If there had been no sin, God would not have sent Him. And it was in His flesh that God condemned and punished the sins of His people.

I have not said that it is an impossible translation; I have said that I do not think it is the right one and I have explained why.
FWIW, I just checked out William Hendriksen's commentary and he wrote, "Although it must be granted that peri hamartias can mean 'for a sin offering,' that sense would seem to be somewhat foreign to the present context." I only mention it to show that my view is not unsupported.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

BTW, how did your sermon go?

I enjoy watching and listening to sermons by people on this board. I think it is important because it makes us more than digital (it emphasizes that we are people). I've seen a few of your sermons (I think the last was a Good Friday sermon). You do well. I disagree a lot, but you do well .

Here is the latest one. Scott Drive Church It's the one entitled 'make every effort.'
I'm not very pleased with it; for some reason I'm swaying from side to side most of the time. But preaching without a congregation is very strange. I admire people like Alistair Begg who can do it so well

 

[JonC]

You may want to read again what I wrote earlier, because you don't seem to have understood it.

I have not said that it is an impossible translation; I have said that I do not think it is the right one and I have explained why.
FWIW, I just checked out William Hendriksen's commentary and he wrote, "Although it must be granted that peri hamartias can mean 'for a sin offering,' that sense would seem to be somewhat foreign to the present context." I only mention it to show that my view is not unsupported.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I was reading your reply as if you were trying to exclude my interpretation as possible based on the text rather than as a support for your interpretation.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[JonC]

Here is the latest one. Scott Drive Church It's the one entitled 'make every effort.'
I'm not very pleased with it; for some reason I'm swaying from side to side most of the time. But preaching without a congregation is very strange. I admire people like Alistair Begg who can do it so well

Thank you for the link. I will watch it. I am sure it was fine. We tend to be overly critical of ourselves.

Now.... On your last video I did notice you talk with an accent. You may want to work on the President's English. .

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you for the link. I will watch it. I am sure it was fine. We tend to be overly critical of ourselves.

Now.... On your last video I did notice you talk with an accent. You may want to work on the President's English. .

Ha! When I was a youngster, one of my teachers mentioned speaking the 'King's English.' Being the horrible precocious child I was then (much as you see me today!), I said, "Shouldn't that be the Queen's English, Sir? I was informed in no uncertain terms that just because the monarch had changed, it didn't mean the English had.
However, after another 50-odd years of Her Majesty, everyone says, the Queen's English.

My mother was a teacher of elocution and speech training. Any time I spoke with anything resembling an accent, I got a clip round the ears and told to "speak properly!"

 

[JonC]

Ha! When I was a youngster, one of my teachers mentioned speaking the 'King's English.' Being the horrible precocious child I was then (much as you see me today!), I said, "Shouldn't that be the Queen's English, Sir? I was informed in no uncertain terms that just because the monarch had changed, it didn't mean the English had.
However, after another 50-odd years of Her Majesty, everyone says, the Queen's English.

My mother was a teacher of elocution and speech training. Any time I spoke with anything resembling an accent, I got a clip round the ears and told to "speak properly!"

I never knew of the "King's English". That is interesting.

My problem is the rules on this side on the pond has changed.

At one time we double spaced after sentences (this was due to the font prior to the advent or availablity of word processing programs). Not that has changed (as Microsoft Word constantly reminds me since the last update).

We were taught not to end a sentence with a preposition. Now it is fine...to.

Once whom and who were used appropriately. Now who is appropriate either way (and whom is fading).

 

[JonC]

Here is the latest one. Scott Drive Church It's the one entitled 'make every effort.'
I'm not very pleased with it; for some reason I'm swaying from side to side most of the time. But preaching without a congregation is very strange. I admire people like Alistair Begg who can do it so well

I think you did well. You were swaying, you delivered the sermon very well. Like big pulpits (and not clear), and tend to walk around a bit. The most difficult part for me was not to just lean on the pulpit as if I were hanging on for dear life. Walking a bit and addressing different parts of the congregation helps me.

I do not think I would do well without a congregation.

 

[Yeshua1]

@Martin Marprelate ,

I think that we are getting a little off subject with the "sin offering" and "sin" topic (at least from my position).

The reason is that I do believe that Paul is pointing to God as "sending His Son the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin" (Romans 8:3).

I mentioned before about Mounce saying that it can mean both and I believe that it does. But I've been stressing "sin offering" absent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" I think just because of getting caught up in the argument.

My point is that it can mean either "sin" as in "sinful flesh" and/or "sin offering" but it cannot mean "God viewing Christ as if he were a sinner". The reason is God is never the one who misunderstood Christ as"stricken by God". It was man. Man deemed Christ stricken by God. The Jews handed Him over to godless men to be killed. It was the will of God (He was pleased to "crush" Him) but it was under the powers of darkness that Christ suffered and died and He was vindicated by the Father through the Resurrection (Acts 4 – 5; Ephesians 1:2-23; Philemon 2).

My point is that PSA is wrong, not because Christ was not "made sin" because He was. Paul tells us in Romans 8 that God sent Christ as a sin offering and in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Both are true. But what we are talking about with PSA has nothing to do with these passages. It has to do with ascribing to God what Scripture ascribes to the wicked (the suffering and death of Christ).

You fail to understand that while ujpon that Cross, Jesus the Son of God willingly became the sin offering for our sales, and as thus, experienced the Hell lost sinners do in their final judgement!

 

[Yeshua1]

You can look through them and see, but it is not important.

Here is why -

In Romans Paul says that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as an offering for sin.

That is what I believe.

So Jesus had our sin nature?

 

[JonC]

You fail to understand that while ujpon that Cross, Jesus the Son of God willingly became the sin offering for our sales, and as thus, experienced the Hell lost sinners do in their final judgement!

Not so. I completely understand what you are saying. I willfully and knowingly state I believe it is false.

Failing to understand something and rejecting something are two very different things.

 

[JonC]

So Jesus had our sin nature?

Jesus had a human nature.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not so. I completely understand what you are saying. I willfully and knowingly state I believe it is false.

Failing to understand something and rejecting something are two very different things.

what did Jesus mean by being forsaken by the Father while being our Sin Bearer then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus had a human nature.

Which would be having a sin nature then!