Penal Substitution Reprised

[JonC]

The Mosaic law was not the beginning of sacrifices. Sorry for your misunderstanding.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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

No such monster.

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.

I never said He was a victim.

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.

I have not insulted you.

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

Strawman

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

That is using scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus became a curse for us - "on our behalf", NOT on "the behalf" but "because of" our sins - pointing to our sinful condition (our nature "in Adam").

I did not write 'on the behalf.' On what basis do you believe that the verse should be translated 'because of our sins'? Not on linguistic grounds, I think.
But what do you think it means that Jesus became a curse for us, and how do you think his becoming a curse for us redeems us from the curse of the law?

He offered Himself as a guilt offering, lay [sic] down His own life.

This is true, but it is also true that 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'

Have you ever contemplated that verse and had your heart filled with wonder and joy and love that it should please the Lord to crush His Beloved Son?

And though it is true that 'No one takes My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself,' it is equally true that 'this command I have received from the Father.' The Father commanded the Son to lay down His life in such a terrible way. And the Son 'did not consider equality with God something to be held to His advantage, but made Himself nothing.......and became obedient to the point of death.'

It is for this reason God loves Jesus, not considers Him evil or unrighteous. And this is the damage of your theory. You look at the Cross and see God's anger when the Bible looks at the Cross and sees God's love.

You really don't get it, do you. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you, you are still thinking in terms of cosmic child abuse. Of course God loves Jesus; that is what makes Penal Substitution so glorious! I look at the cross and see God's righteous anger propitiated. 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake. He will magnify the law and make it honourable.' I am amazed at the love of Father, Son and Spirit who devised such an amazing plan of salvation so that God 'might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.'

'How deep the Father's love for us!
How vast above all measure!
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure!'

'What was it, O our God,
Led You to give Your Son,
To yield Your Well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led You to give
Your well-loved Son that we might live.

What led the Son of God
To leave His throne on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
Unbounded love for sinners lost
Led Him to suffer at such cost.'[/QUOTE]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In not one of your illustrations does it state that the letter writer, the debt payer, the life giver was rebuked by the recipient of the payment, much less was the letter or the writer angrily received.

NOT ONE has the just retribution of such payment that of rebuke and anger been the result, not even a hint of disgust. Rather, the recipient is pleased.

There are a lot of illustrations, many have been heard and used, that could sustain that which Christ did was on our behalf. But, none can show the recipient in any manner of displeasure and remain Scriptural.

Writing letters, making payment, ... is the NOT basis of the actual question.

What has not been shown as Scriptural is that the tortuous conditions and even the crucifixion were signs of God's wrath.

Again, Isaiah "It PLEASED..." So, where is wrath in being joyful, in agreement, in love?

If there is a single longer passage that expresses the events from the perspective of Christ it is found in Psalms 22.

Certainly, in that place in which the very thoughts of the Christ are revealed (for they were not spoken on the cross, with the exception of a single phrase).

So, certainly, in that place the Scriptures would reveal Christ's perspective that the Father "poured His wrath out upon the Son" in just retribution for making payment.

Perhaps you can use Psalms 22 as a foundation and show were the wrath from God is stated?

I have not found such.

Indeed, I have not found such in any passage of Scriptures!

That leads to the obvious conclusion.

There was NO wrath of God poured out upon the Son at ANYTIME.

So what does it mean that Christ was made sin, that He became a curse for us, that it pleased the Lord to bruise Him?
Let me stress this again: God was not angry with Christ as His beloved Son; His anger is against sin and His wrath was poured out upon the Son made sin for us. How wonderful it is that Christ became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him!

Again, Isaiah "It PLEASED..." So, where is wrath in being joyful, in agreement, in love?

If it pleased me to smack someone in the mouth, why would it be? Because I was pleased with that person or angry with him?

 

[agedman]

You really don't get it, do you. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you, you are still thinking in terms of cosmic child abuse.

Actually, JonC does get it.

He is NOT disputing the severity of the forensic (penal).

He is disputing that it was a display of God's wrath.

Such thinking that it is a display of God's wrath is what Isaiah said humankind would think.

"BUT" it was not according to Isaiah.

And, it was NOT God's wrath either!

Did not Isaiah state that God was PLEASED?

 

[JonC]

No such monster.

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.

I never said He was a victim.

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.

Strawman

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.

That is using scripture.

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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, sorry its not. Just because they did it wrong does not help with this discussion as to whether PSA is pagan.

No, this was/is the point. You are arguing the OT offering pointed to the sacrifice as a victim rather than a sacrifice. [/QUOTE]

I have never once argued about anyone being a victim. You brought up the victim thing not me. Strawman.

 

[JonC]

I did not write 'on the behalf.' On what basis do you believe that the verse should be translated 'because of our sins'? Not on linguistic grounds, I think.
But what do you think it means that Jesus became a curse for us, and how do you think his becoming a curse for us redeems us from the curse of the law?

This is true, but it is also true that 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'

Have you ever contemplated that verse and had your heart filled with wonder and joy and love that it should please the Lord to crush His Beloved Son?

And though it is true that 'No one takes My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself,' it is equally true that 'this command I have received from the Father.' The Father commanded the Son to lay down His life in such a terrible way. And the Son 'did not consider equality with God something to be held to His advantage, but made Himself nothing.......and became obedient to the point of death.'

You really don't get it, do you. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you, you are still thinking in terms of cosmic child abuse. Of course God loves Jesus; that is what makes Penal Substitution so glorious! I look at the cross and see God's righteous anger propitiated. 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake. He will magnify the law and make it honourable.' I am amazed at the love of Father, Son and Spirit who devised such an amazing plan of salvation so that God 'might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.'

'How deep the Father's love for us!
How vast above all measure!
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure!'

'What was it, O our God,
Led You to give Your Son,
To yield Your Well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led You to give
Your well-loved Son that we might live.

What led the Son of God
To leave His throne on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
Unbounded love for sinners lost
Led Him to suffer at such cost.'

[/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

 

[JonC]

No, sorry its not. Just because they did it wrong does not help with this discussion as to whether PSA is pagan.

I have never once argued about anyone being a victim. You brought up the victim thing not me. Strawman.

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.

 

[agedman]

So what does it mean that Christ was made sin, that He became a curse for us, that it pleased the Lord to bruise Him?

You are assuming that God did some punishment rather than ALLOWING for humankind to express their fallen nature just as they had to all the messengers of God. Remember the parable of the owner sending the representatives to receive from the workers?

Each stroke of the whip, each bone moved out of joint, each eye with vision marred, ... was allowed by God, not as an expression of God's wrath, but because it was an expression of what the nature of the fallen humans could devise - they did their worse - yet His life was not taken from Him, He laid it down.

They (as Saul / Paul) thought they were doing the work of God. Pleasing God, (smitten of God and afflicted), BUT, it pleased God.

No wrath from God is expressed at anytime upon Christ.

Let me stress this again: God was not angry with Christ as His beloved Son; His anger is against sin and His wrath was poured out upon the Son made sin for us. How wonderful it is that Christ became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him!

If it pleased me to smack someone in the mouth, why would it be? Because I was pleased with that person or angry with him?

Such thinking of God pouring out His wrath upon the Son for actions of obedience to the Father is not Scripturally sustainable. It isn't even sustainable outside the Scriptures with the exception of perverted and injustice.

Christ "bore our sins IN (not on) his body." He did this as the obedient to the Father's will. He was not punished, nor were the sins punished. The sins were forgiven. Sin as an employer pays wages, it is not a debt collector.

The BLOOD (forgiveness cannot happen without blood) oozing from every pore, every internal organ, was a statement of forgiveness of all sin, not of sin being rebuked, not of sin being punished.

What did the wage sin paid for such labor? death. Even the death on the Cross was a point of forgiveness for it was concurred in the resurrection.

No wrath of God was ever poured out upon the Son.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

I have never used the word victim, I never claimed it nor do I believe it. I first responded to that word when i responded to your post# 56. How in the world you have come to this conclusion is beyond me.

 

[JonC]

I have never used the word victim, I never claimed it nor do I believe it. I first responded to that word when i responded to your post# 56. How in the world you have come to this conclusion is beyond me.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

I do not believe Christ was a victim. He went to the cross willingly. Christ being a victim is absurd. Who would say that?

 

[JonC]

So what does it mean that Christ was made sin, that He became a curse for us, that it pleased the Lord to bruise Him?
Let me stress this again: God was not angry with Christ as His beloved Son; His anger is against sin and His wrath was poured out upon the Son made sin for us. How wonderful it is that Christ became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him!

If it pleased me to smack someone in the mouth, why would it be? Because I was pleased with that person or angry with him?

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").

 

[JonC]

I do not believe Christ was a victim. He went to the cross willingly. Christ being a victim is absurd. Who would say that?

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

The idea that Scripture itself, and what the Bible says of Christ's suffering, is insufficient and needs expounding upon is appalling. .

Who said that scripture was insufficient?

 

[JonC]

Who said that scripture was insufficient?

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

Again you are pitting scripture against scripture. I reject the idea that what is implied in scripture is not scripture.

 

[JonC]

Again you are pitting scripture against scripture. I reject the idea that what is implied in scripture is not scripture.

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.

 

[agedman]

... I reject the idea that what is implied in scripture is not scripture.

This is an interesting consideration.

What might be "implied in Scripture" that is taken as Scripture?

What might be "implied in Scripture" yet cannot be taken as Scripture?