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!
No. What is obvious is that God laid our iniquities on Jesus and offered him as a guilt offering and by his stripes we are healed. There is a reason you see as obvious what is in reality absent. Your theory has substituted "our punishment" for "iniquities.". You read your theory into the text.
I agree. There are several interpretations of the Atonement that is supported via Scripture (they all can't be right, but perhaps many are partially right). But where we may or may not agree is my insistence that we should always develop our understanding through Scripture and weigh them against the Word - not only when they are new, but also when they are worn comfortable by years of acceptance. That is my concern here. The absence of a willingness to discuss Scripture, to look at what is written apart from our explanations, on such an important topic.
I obviously disagree with your conclusions, but I am delighted to see more engagement with Scripture than you and I have been able to generate here. In essence you are "preaching to the choir" as you assume that "on the cross the Son is left utterly alone." But this is not, I take it, an apologetic for Penal Substitution theory. It is to reinforce the theory within a specific faith.
I have found that a blog is a better place to do exposition than a discussion forum because one can take a few days over the thing without the thread moving on.
The purpose of the blog post is to show in what way Christ was forsaken on the cross. I have felt that at times we were talking past each other. The blog is not aimed at any theological constituency. The posts are aimed at folk who are in churches that are supposedly evangelical but preach a truncated Gospel. This is the situation in the church where I was first saved. Obviously, I owe the folk there, under God, a debt that I can never repay, but it wasn't a place where I could grow, so I had to leave. I try to keep some of the people there in my mind when I write.
What you cannot do is take our Lord's words, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" and make them mean, "Thank you for not forsaking Me." This is what I meant when I spoke of making a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse. You cannot try to use context to make a verse mean the opposite of what it says. The context is our Lord hanging on the cross, forsaken by God. If you will look at Post #98, you will see how Christ suffered our hell for the 3 hours on the cross, including separation from the felt presence of the Father.
We certainly disagree on the meaning of Psalm 22, brother. I am not saying, BTW, that your conclusions are void of Scripture. I am working off the understanding that we are both Christians, both disciples not only in our walk with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as exhibited towards others, but also in terms of our spiritual growth through God's Word. That we both look to Scripture is, IMHO, a given. My criticism that your conclusions are not derived from Scripture also does not mean derived entirely as this is impossible. A word read is processed before apprehended, and theology is by nature reflective of our own cognitive vices. We do the best we can, but in the end we lean not on our own understanding. My criticism is, however, that I find your theories and theologies more dependent upon explanation than I would desire for myself.
Exactly, and it is sad to see this rejection and cavalier attitude of his.
We are human, brother. We typically do not want to see our ideas challenged, especially when we have built so much upon them. But no, I am far from cavalier about this issue. If anything, "cavalier" would describe your post as quoted above. I suppose "cowardly" would also apply as the insult is conversational to MM but about me on a public forum.
Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm. Surely you are not going to deny that? How do you account for vs. 16 & 18 if it is purely about David? And yes, our Lord fulfils the whole of the Psalm as I explained in Post #132. In that post there are 4 Scripture citations and another 4 Scripture references. That should be enough to satisfy any man. Why not deal with them?
First, once again you are saying that my position is the polluted well of academic theory whilst yours is the pure undiluted Florida orange juice of Scripture. I beg to disagree. Your 'exposition' of Psalm 22 is a travesty, as I pointed out in Post#132.
I only just saw this. "Our punishment" for what?
You have misunderstood my intention. I brought up and argued the Church Fathers and their theory of Atonement not as proof supporting my own (I disagree with many of their conclusions....Origen thought Jesus basically paid the Devil off). I was trying to establish that Penal Substitution was not an early theory of the Church. I was saying that while aspects may have been there, those aspects did not add up to the theory. That's all. And it was appropriate in that context to use the Church Fathers as reference. It is not, however, true that I was resting my theology on their conclusions. This is a false statement, brother, but I am confident it was unintentional.
I was only saying that Isaiah 53 says God laid our iniquity on Jesus, not our "punishment." That is your interpretation. I am fine with you defending an explanation as the word is absent from the text. I may be critical of your view, but I will not intentionally ridicule you or your view.
So what happens to our punishment?
Nothing happens to our punishment. Punishment, like sin, is not a material thing. God forgives us in Christ and punishment is avoided. Forgiveness means relinquishing any claim.
Death isn't a punishment for Sin?
Wrong! 'The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.'