Perhaps if you'd review the Scriptures . . .
-
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!
Penal Substitution Reprised
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
You have it entirely wrong.
Scripture states that murder is wrong. It also tells us that God formed us in the womb and knew us in the womb etc.
We taking these Scriptures together and find that it is 'necessarily contained' in Scripture that abortion is wrong although it is not explicitly stated. The same is true of the Doctrine of the Trinity and also of Penal Substitution, and I have tried to show in the OPs.
Not really. Rather than a substitute it could mean a purchase or redemption.
This is like the example of "forgiveness" that was recently offered. I owe you $100 and you forgive the debt - yet you still in a sense pay it for me because you assume the loss. But this is not the context through which Scripture looks at sin. If I slap you and you forgive me, you have not assumed a lost but have foregone retaliation. You have forgiven a wrong. PSA would have God slap someone because He is unable to forgive a wrong. It simply looks at Scripture through an unbiblical context.
Christ dying for our sins does not mean as a substitute for our sins but as a redemption for us - delivering us from the bondage of sin and death.
Why then do we go from "The Father is always with Me" and "The Father has not left Me alone" to "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning? O My God, I cry in the daytime but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent."? [I hope no one will say that Psalm 22 does not refer to Christ. Verses16 & 18 show that it does, not to mention John 5:39 etc.]
God was with Christ even in Gethsemane, when He sent an angel to strengthen Him (Luke 22:43), but on the cross, He forsakes Him. If it is not so, why does the Lord Jesus say it is? The 'daytime' and the 'night season' undoubtedly refer to the periods before and during the time of darkness between the sixth and ninth hours.
The Lord Jesus is allowed no comfort of any king during His time on the cross. I think it is of huge significance that He refuses the wine mixed with myrrh on Mark 15:23. We know from John 8:28 that Christ does "nothing of Myself." He was obedient 'to the point of death, even the death of the cross' (Philippians 2:8). So the Father commands that on the cross He should have not even the slightest respite or mitigation of His agony until propitiation is made in full, and the Son willingly undergoes it (John 12:27-28). Isn't that wonderful?! Doesn't it rejoice your heart to think that the Triune God should love us so much that the Christ should be prepared to suffer in such a terrible way?
Why did the Father make His beloved Son suffer in this way? Would He not have spared Him if there was any other way to save sinners? Of course He would! But there was no other way by which God could be 'just and the justifier on the one who believes in Jesus.' In Galatians 3:10-13. God’s law pronounces a curse on law-breakers: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (v.10; c.f. Deuteronomy 27:26; James 2:10). We ourselves are cursed, for none of us have continued in God’s holy law. But, ‘Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law….’ How has He done that? ‘…..having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”’ (v.13; Deuteronomy 21:23). In God’s law it is written, so, as Luther says, ‘Christ hung on a tree; therefore Christ was accursed of God’ (Luther: Commentary on Galatians).
Likewise Christ, the sinless One, was 'made sin.' Isaiah 53:6 explains what that means. 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' He became legally guilty of all the sins of His people, and God, who 'is angry with sinners every day' was angry with Christ made sin.
Finally, in John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of type of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? Well where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a type of Christ? He is a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).
These things are so wonderful, so glorious, that I cannot understand anyone resisting this obvious and marvellous doctrine.
'From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hath not the Father put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord, was charged on Thee?
Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost Thou hast paid
Whate'er Thy people owed;
How then can wrath on me take place,
if sheltered in Thy righteousness
And sprinkled with Thy blood?
If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine;
Payment God will not twice demand,
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.
Turn then, my soul, unto thy rest!
The merits of thy great High Priest
have bought thee liberty.
Trust in Hios efficacious blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee.' [Augustus Toplady]
Yes, of course we learn from Scripture and we apply them to our lives. BUT we learn these things from Scripture. We don't read an entire doctrine "between the lines". The only way you can see PSA as stated in Scripture is to assume a context which is not actually present.
Again, I am not arguing against PSA so much as trying to get you to open your eyes to see what is actually Scripture and what we carry. Origen's Ransom Theory takes what is in Scripture and assumes one idea of "ransom" to be implied. What he got wring was not the ransom but the context he believed implied. PSA does the same (not necessarily that it is wrong, but that so many do not recognize it is human reasoning by supplying a context).
We have to know where Scripture ends and our understanding begins or we elevate ourselves to the position of God.
Not answering for @agedman , but probably because the entire Psalm refers to the Cross - where "forsaken" does not mean the absence of God but rather God sparing not His own Son. We all experience, to a lesser degree, this sense of being forsaken, of going through trials rather then being delivered out of them (this is what the Psalmist experienced), yet our hope is in God.
How many times? God does not punish the righteous! He punishes Christ made sin for us.
Since it's clear that you still haven't bothered to read my OPs, I have done a sort of Janet and JonC version in my post# 104 [edited]
The doctrine of Penal Substitution is vital, not only because it is true and clearly taught in Scripture, but because it supplies the legal basis for God to justify guilty sinners. Justification is a legal, forensic term, and if its legal foundation is removed, the whole of Biblical doctrine will collapse like a row of dominoes. This happened in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and the recovery of that doctrine is still a work in progress. Just as Lenin had his 'useful idiots' who were not communists but did not oppose him, so Satan has them also, and I'm afraid you look a lot like one of them.
On what possible basis do you propose this? 'Forsaken' means 'forsaken.' Its synonyms are 'abandoned' and 'deserted.'
Why not do a word search on the Hebrew azab and the Greek enkataleipo? 'Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world.' Demas abandoned paul, deserted him in his hour of need. 'Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.....' Not abandoning going the church; not deserting ones Christian brothers.
You are wrong. I have very carefully read your OPs. The problem is that they rely on a contextual framework that is foreign to Scripture. You have to understand that there are some, like me, who will insist that Scripture is our authority and question what is assumed (what others believe "implied", or written between the lines). Quite simply, you have not proven your point. You have built theory upon theory to explain what you believe based on the assumption your presuppositions are true. But when we build doctrine on anything but God's Word we end up with a weak foundation. And that is what you have done.
Your aggravation is that despite all of your words I have not assumed your presuppositions. The reason is that I once held them and I see the flaws. It is, as I noted before, like looking at a wall. If you don't know an imperfection exists you may never be aware of the problem. But once you see it, once you know it is there, you cannot help but see it every time you look.
I know your arguments because they were once mine. I know them inside and out. I've studied them and taught them. You are not telling me anything new. That's what you have to understand. For over three decades I held your view. And I know where the cracks are.
On Scripture itself. It is not "it is written" but "it is written again". Scripture interprets Scripture. We can do "word studies" (if that is what you call what you are doing) and justify almost any doctrine.
Look at it this way, @Martin Marprelate , you have not been able to reject anything I believe about the atonement via Scripture. You have not been able to point out anything I believe as not being in Scripture. The only thing you have been able to do is say that I do not believe what you think Scripture implies.
That is the difference. What you think Scripture implies is, as you have put it, the heart of what you believe. You can never prove what is not there (what you believe implied). I knew this going into each thread, and I think you (since you've gone from past arguments a year ago that "it is written" to "it is implied") are starting to realize this. You are not asking me to turn to Scripture but to accept presuppositions I once held but now reject. I am not interested in adopting ideas men believe implied in Scripture.
That is the difference. What you think Scripture implies is, as you have put it, the heart of what you believe. You can never prove what is not there (what you believe implied). I knew this going into each thread, and I think you (since you've gone from past arguments a year ago that "it is written" to "it is implied") are starting to realize this. You are not asking me to turn to Scripture but to accept presuppositions I once held but now reject. I am not interested in adopting ideas men believe implied in Scripture.
ALL Psalm 22 is a statement of the thoughts of Christ on the Cross.
And not a single statement of the "wrath of God poured out upon Him."
Martin,
Certainly Christ suffered. THAT is not what is in question.
What IS the issue?
Was that suffering "payment" for sin, when the Scriptures state that it is the "blood shed?"
And, was that suffering the "wrath of God" when the Scriptures do not indicate it as such?
Such verses as "the Lord has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all" do not translate into the suffering being payment. It is that gift God gave to the Son to carry. Such gift that none of earthly might could bear.
Much earlier, I shared that each wound, each bruise, each point of suffering was blood letting. Both that seen externally, and also that the internal damage that was historically significant when one was interrogated. That blood is what was the satisfaction.
Were before, Christ escaped the vile hand of man, from the garden (symbol of Eden) He humbled Himself and allowed the viciousness. He allowed such that the blood be sprinkled from the garden, through the temple, to the magistrate, and even to be taken outside the gate. Such signifying the sin from Adam through all history is carried by the Christ.
Do not think that such suffering is expressed as the wrath of God as a RESULT of the taking on of sin, for GOD (according to Isaiah) is the one laid the iniquity upon the Son.
Why would God punish His Son for doing what He wanted Him to do, and in fact actually placing the iniquity upon the Son?
Paul stated:
"...10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."
That same suffering Christ bore, Paul said he was not willing to escape, either, because it was a point of fellowship.
The suffering of the Cross brought fellowship, it brought reconciliation, it brought healing, it brought peace. It did not bring vengeance.
"It PLEASED ...." not God poured out His wrath upon the Son.
Yes, Colossians 1:13, Romans 6:3, and 1 Corinthians 12:13.
Ask yourself, am I in Christ. If your answer is yes, then it was God who put you there, 1 Corinthians 1:30.
As far as the "two step process" if the reconciliation had occurred when Christ died on the cross, then we would not have the ministry of reconciliation, it would be a done deal. What is found nowhere in any bible is the conflated doctrine of Reformed Atonement.
First, we see the claim of Agedman being able to mind read, and then we see the first false claim.
1) All sins were not forgiven as a result of Christ becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Only the sins are forgiven of those God transfers into Christ, where they undergo the circumcision of Christ. Any other view is false and unbiblical.
2) All sins were forgiven for every individual God transfers into Christ, but none of the sins were forgiven for every individual not transferred into Christ.
Yes, Martin.
Just as all words, "enkataleipo" may actually mean walk away and never see again.
HOWEVER, throughout the Scriptures, the word is most often used in the sense of leaving along, or leave helpless, of leaving one unsustainable.
For ease of readers, here is what "Bible hub" shows for Strongs: left in a condition of lack ("without"); hence, to feel forsaken (helpless), like left in dire circumstances. (Strong's Greek: 1459. ἐγκαταλείπω (egkataleipó) -- to leave behind, i.e. (in a good sense) let remain over or (in a bad sense) desert)
Again, that does not mean that both the Hebrew and the Greek cannot carry the term to mean "discard," rather, it just is NOT the most typically considered accurate (imo).
As with nearly every case, the word definitions must fit into what is presented.
There is not (imo) a place to be found in which the Scriptures showing events related to the crucifixion (Numbers, Leviticus, Isaiah, Gospels, Revelations...) that place the events as even being a hint that the violence was the "wrath of God," or that God discarded or even disregarded His Son.
Such thinking is just not found in Scriptures.
Just the opposite are evidenced.
There are indications that pleasure, rejoicing, honor, glory, are what was actually taking place.
Van,
I take time to actually quote YOU. To actually show by YOUR own posts, the actual things YOU write, the error(s).
Perhaps you can find a posts sometime, somewhere, where this is actually true to what I have posted? Perhaps, in all the thousands of posts I have made, you can find an error
I doubt it.
But so no reader is mistakenly assuming Van is truthfully reflecting upon what I view as Scriptural, I will again restate.
Christ's blood was shed for all humanity, without regard to station, class, race, creed, belief, unbelief, ... Not a single drop was reserved, and held back until one is "transferred into Christ."
Christ was ONCE offered. Not multiple times as the need occurs, or that the blood is held in some supply room, perhaps in buckets, and when a person is "transferred into Christ" a sprinkling of that blood is applied.
Sin(s) is not what determines the final estate of any individual.
That resides in the sole condition of the soul. BELIEF.
All who believe are saved, redeemed, "in Christ," sanctified by Him, ...
All who do not believe are "condemned already."
God was NOT though executing His wrath and punishment upon someone who was NOT willing to take them in order to atone for lost sinners! jesus was willing to become as it were sin for our behalf, so that the father was seeing Jesus while upon the Cross in a sense of Him becoming sin in our place, in order to propitiate the wrath of God directed towards sins and sinners!
- Status