Penal Substitution Reprised

No. It is not. But we are not talking about biblical sacrifice. We are talking about pagan influences imposed onto biblical sacrifices.

Your error is in presenting Christ as a victim rather than the Lamb of God who obedient to God's command lay down His own life. You do not understand the sacrificial system as pointing to sacrifice but to victimization.

You can deny it all you want, and offer insult. but that does not change the fact that Christ lay down His own life, in obedience but of his own accord, and because of this God showed Him love, not anger.

The sacrificial lamb pointed to Christ, who was not a victim.

Perhaps you could use scripture rather than what you believe implied.

 

Sure there is. Read Lev. 10:1. Look at Israel throughout much of the OT. Look at first century Judaism. Not all sacrifices were biblical sacrifices although they took that form. Your reply is nonesence and I believe you know it.

No. You just argued against my post saying the OT sacrifice pointed to Christ and was not conveying the meaning the sacrifice was a victim. Same thing.

No, this was/is the point. You are arguing the OT offering pointed to the sacrifice as a victim rather than a sacrifice. This foreshadowed Christ as the Lamb of God. If you dont understand this fundamental principle then PM me and I will walk you through Christ as the Lamb.

yea...without actually using scripture. I know...."it's implied".

 

[/QUOTE]
Christ died for our sins.

1. Because of our sins (pointing to our sinfulness) Christ died.

2. To redeem our sins Christ died.

3. On behalf of our sins Christ died.

4. To gather our sins Christ died.

Have your pick.

I told you what I believe .
Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders

 

1. I never argued PSA as being pagan. Please watch your false accusations. I will chalk it up to a lack of attention.

2. The post you challenged me on was concerning the offering as viewing the sacrifice as a victim. Trying to back out of it now by denying the topic you quoted is not honest.

 

You objected to the post where I was replying to another member who did use the word "victim" (the one you quoted). If this was I error I understand, but that has been what I've been arguing against these past several posts. Christ was not a victim.

 

It means:

Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak 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.

You misunderstand "pleased". It means it was God's will ..... just as Paul stayed (e.g. "if it pleases the court").

 

What was said is that the OT offering was the victim. My point is that within the biblical narrative the offering is a sacrifice, not a victim, and points to Christ who sacrificed himself rather than Christ as a victim. I believe Aaron said it.

 

The argument here is that the text of Scripture is insufficient. The example given was the idea of the Trinity being implied rather than supplied by Scripture. We cannot test doctrine against Scripture because what is implied (what men reason out) is Scripture itself.

Scripture then becomes subjective. Whatever it means to me is what it implies. And this subjectivity is read into the text itself.

We ran into this when you claimed a verse stated something that was not actually in the text. Your idea, that you read as Scripture, could never be tested against Scripture because it was just something you felt it implied.

 

No. I am saying Scripture should be used to interpret Scripture. I am pitting Scripture against things people say are implied to see if they hold water. When what is "implied" contradicts what is stated, I believe the former an error.

It is called "biblical discernment" and utilizes Scripture itself, not what it means to us, as the authority.