Penal Substitution and the Trinity

Ha! You just made my point. The definitions come from the context in which they are used, else the word's meaning wouldn't make sense. .

By the way, you can't take a root meaning and make it the very meaning. A root means it is derived from or has the sense of something, like your example of "bitter" but the word is "rebellion". You cannot replace rebellion with 'bitter' but you can see the bitterness in rebellion because it 'comes from' the word but it is NoT the word itself. They have to different meanings.

 

I think you are the first to suggest that the Trinity could be separated. While I would understand if one argued for a separation between God and Christ on a physical basis, that separation was possible on an eternal level, from a spiritual perspective, is not something I think many would agree with. I could be wrong about that though.

The Father was with Christ in that hour:


John 16:31-32
King James Version (KJV)

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Belief apart from "textual grounds" is not logical.

I think its an important issue. That Christ was forsaken is based on His quotation of David in Psalm 22, and the fact is...David was not forsaken:


Psalm 22:23-24
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.


Christ also quotes this:

Psalm 31
King James Version (KJV)

5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.


And goes on to say...


Psalm 31:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 For I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes: nevertheless thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto thee.

Christ does not forgive the Father for what He does, but...


Luke 23:34
King James Version (KJV)

34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Again, a point debated in the thread. I take the position it makes little sense for God to manifest in flesh for the very purpose of the Cross and then waver at the end.

I see the Lord as asking that the cup, which entails His Incarnation, His suffering (which itself lends itself to more than being brutalized, but having to partake of human flesh itself), and His atoning for those that made Him weep...pass.

I think it is just that simple: "Father, let this be the time that we get this done."

If we apply "My God my God why hast Thou forsaken Me," then we should equally apply...


Psalm 22:23-24
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.


As well as...


Hebrews 5:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Some see it that way. I see that as an impossibility due to the fact God cannot be separated from Himself.

Just not a possibility.

God is always One, eternally.

Sorry for taking so long to respond, it has been a little busy.


God bless.

 

Ok, I went back to look up the word because initially I was just responding to your post and not the actual wording. In light of that, the word's basic definition here is - bitterness but is used figuratively as rebellion. The root is more regarding "to make" bitter, not just bitter. Thus the word here is about being in a state of bitterness or a sense of rebellion.

 

No, it cannot be because not only will the context will not allow for it, nor the wording, but the very meaning of 'made' (to become) is specific. If the text stated "like", or "as", then yes your point is valid but it does not. Here is your problem in the text... it is worded specifically 'made sin' and thus must be understood as in the same way. You are adding to the text a pretext to replace the text that is given. It was written "made sin" because that was the way it was to be interpreted, context. Again, you must go back to OT Law to understand the sacrifice, what it embodied and what was needed for the law to be satisfied and WHY? While it is a foreshadowing (meaning a picture of what is to be depicted via an image) does not negate the fact of what it means nor entails.
Another point, As A.T. Robertson, a widely accepted and renowned Greek scholar, puts it: ""Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin."

Anyhoo.. done on this thread. Have a great day. I'm out... lots of work

 

First, I have to ask, are you saying that on the Christ Christ became a sinner? That is Jon's point, that He was not actually a sinner. You seem to be arguing He was.

Secondly, based on your argument here, this...


2 Corinthians 5:21
King James Version (KJV)

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


...means we are literally the righteousness of God. When in fact the righteousness in view is what God has done through Christ. We are the result, not the cause.

Exactly, and what that pictures is a symbolic transference of sin to an animal who is then put to death in the stead of the sinner.

No different with the Sacrifice of Christ. He did not become a sinner on the Cross, it is because He was sinless that His Sacrifice can be substituted for the death we would have died.

It was very simple, the wages of sin is death, when someone sinned, they had to die.

Enter the Grace of God, which provided the sacrificial system so that instead of the sinner dying, an animal died in their place. The animal did not become a sinner in order to satisfy the requirement of the provision, it simply...died.

And only Christ could be the scapegoat and the sacrifice. In this we see one offering dying, one offering living, and the twain are made one in two ways: Christ died and lived, and the sinner died (in Christ, symbolically) and lives (in Christ).

Precisely.

Gesundheit.




God bless.

 

Which was the inspired text then, the LLX or the Hebrew one of the OT?
And the Acts passage indeed tells to us that the Father determined that Messiah would die as the Suffering Servant, and that He used the sinful acts of sinners there to accomplish that Feat!

 

JonC keeps on claiming that on this issue, you and me and Martin are trusting in traditions of men over the scriptures for our understanding, but is he not doing here the very same thing he claims that we are? his presumptions on wrath of God and Jesus not having to face that wrath is coloring his understanding here?

 

God had to see jesus as the Sin bearer, and to remain true to his holiness, had to have the Messiah suffer for the sake of the redeemed, in order to be able to declare them righteous.

 

God MUST have his wrath appeased and accounted for, in order to be able to declare sinners right with Himself now, in order to have His justice/judgement and Holiness all stand!

 

Is it JUST Reformed that hold to the Pst, as before coming over to the reformed salvation position and the Pst, many Baptist authors seemed to hold it in same regard, and none of them quoted calvin!

 

Jesus in HIMSELF never became a sinner or sinful or hasd a sin nature, but as the Sin Bearer, God had to treat Him as if he were all of those!

 

No, I believe that the Hebrew text was inspired of God, not the LLX

 

God, in order to remaun faithful to his holiness/wrath/love/justice, to Himself, had to treat and view Jesus on the Cross as being Sin Bearer, as being as it were very sin....