Featured Christ being made sin Volume 2

It could be that this is the issue. I think sin can be transferred, in the sense of the guilt, penalty and punishment. I believe God can impute these things. Much of scripture is devoted to helping us understand that Jesus is the one and the only one ever qualified to do this. It definitely would be wrong to punish someone else for another person's sins. It happens in our world and we abhor it. But we also abhor sin not being punished. So we just as much hate the idea of major monstrous sins being simply overlooked. We despise judges who do this type of thing. We don't need to worry about that with God. It is His nature to punish sin and hate sin and in a judicial sense - hate the sinner. Don't get too caught up in our human limitations of understanding. There is an animal part of us, and a depraved part of us, that when we experience wrath may very well have a lot to do with our feelings. Our wrath can be totally or partially selfish or wrongheaded and a part of it is a physical dumping of neurotransmitters into our systems. Not so with God. But still, wrath is what scripture uses for our benefit to explain this and with my knowledge of the other attributes of God I have no problem with the expression.

 

Like I have said before we are looking at the same verses and coming to different conclusions but the assertion that this is not in scripture I reject. I also see much of this in early church writings and I reject the idea that it was invented in the 1500's. I do think that it is articulated and developed by the reformers but maybe it needed to be. I do understand and agree with you that this aspect of our salvation needed to be brought to the forefront when you were coming up against a Priesthood that had claimed the power to remit or forgive sins themselves and had the right to set up penances and punishments for infractions. But that in no way makes it untrue.

This happens in other areas too. The early reformers and the Puritans were not big on evangelism or missionary work. The fact that others "found" these things in later years in no way suggests they were newly discovered novelties. Instead I think that these groups were living in a time where this was impossible, they had other important issues that took priority, and that they were probably just wrong to some extent.

I do think that penal substitution is a core belief that was generally accepted without needing to go into it by almost everyone who got access to a complete canon of scripture and had an opportunity to look at Old and New Testament writings. I like Richard Baxter, and even though he had some views on justification that were not reformed and supposedly embraced a governmental view of the atonement, if you read his writings he constantly refers to the blood of Christ being shed in a way that indicates a deeply held core belief in penal substitution.

 

"When a single ray of light shines into a prism, it refracts into the colors of the rainbow. No one color is more prominent than the others, but each contributes to the beauty of light.

We might liken the doctrine of the atonement in the early church to a single ray that enters a prism and refracts into many colors of doctrine. These fathers and mothers of the church appreciated and exhausted the various ways Scripture speaks of Christ’s work on the cross. Penal substitutionary atonement—the idea that Jesus was punished in our place—is certainly one of those colors, even if it’s no brighter than the other colors in their writings...."

Excellent illustration, excellent article. I liken 'the many synonymies within scripture' to a multi-faceted gem with each facet looking into the center and 'contributing to the beauty of the whole'.

"...We end where we began, with the colors of the rainbow. This is fitting since the fathers squeezed out meaning from every word of Scripture, including color. One image they used repeatedly for the atonement was Rahab’s scarlet thread, hung from her window for her salvation (Josh. 2:18), which many in the early church took as the blood of Christ.

To cite Clement once more, “And in addition they gave [Rahab] a sign, that she should hang from her house something scarlet—making it clear that through the blood of the Lord redemption will come to all who believe and hope in God” (1 Clem. 12:7–8)...."

Yea.

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. Ex 12

 

Did you read the article?

 

False comparison to go with the false dichotomy.

 

Is the above what God was showing Abraham in his only begotten son Isaac, that he God was going to do in his only begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, the Lamb of God?

And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. Gen 22:8

 

This is rubbish as you must surely know.
Example 1. The father is angry at the sin, dog-kicking, which is a transgression of his righteous standards.. Therefore his righteous anger is directed at the sinner, his son.
If the father doesn't care about dog-kicking, or kicks the dog himself, he will not be angry with his son and will not punish him.
Example 2. God is angry at the sin, gossiping Leviticus 19:16), which is a transgression of His righteous standards. Therefore his righteous anger is directed at the sinner, the minister.
If God were not angry at gossiping, He would not warn against it in His word or punish those who commit it.

 

That is what I said. God is angry at the sin, but His anger is directed against the sinner. If He were not angry at the sin He would not punish the sinner.
Ezekiel 7:10. Behold the day! Behold it has come! Doom has gone out; pride has blossomed, violence has risen up into a rod of wickedness.' God is angry at pride and violence. Is he going to punish them? No. 'None of them shall remain, none of their multitude.' Who is the 'them'? Those who are proud and those commit violence. It is against them that God is angry.
Malachi 2:16. 'For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce.' How can God direct His anger at divorce? He doesn't, but He will punish those who divorce for no good reason and do not repent (c.f. Malachi 2:13).

 

Except that the Bible says they can. Leviticus 16:21-22; Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24. And if sin cannot be imputed, how can righteous be? Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3-5.

 

I did not say it did.

First of all, I did not 'demonstrate the NT as interpretated by the OT.' I illustrated my point by quotations from both Testaments.(Matthew 13:52). Secondly, I long to see any Scripture from you! In five posts, all I've had is your religious philosophy. Thirdly if you want to know what the purpose of the OT is in the NT age, the Scripture itself tells you. Go and look it up.

And now you are just being silly and offensive. I don't need to reply to this sort of nonsense. Please! Let's just stop replying to each other's posts. It always ends badly.

Chapter and verse please if you are determined to continue.