Penal Substitution Reprised

[agedman]

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!

Why do you cling so to this thinking of God "executing His wrath and punishment?"

Would it not be proper for you to be able to actually use Scriptures to point to such wrath and punishment to "atone for lost sinners?"

Where else in ALL Scriptures does wrath and punishment EVER atone for sin?

See such extra biblical pronunciations are RCC thinking, that which leads to purgatory and indulgence purchases. That some sinfulness must be "punished" in order to be atoned.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

I have long given up any hope of persuading you of Biblical truth. I post in the hope of reaching those who read the posts without posting themselves.
If you have read my OPs, you have not responded to them, and therefore have certainly not rebutted them. Your last three posts have been completely devoid of Scripture. It is therefore difficult to point out discrepancies in something that isn't there. And whether you admit it, either to me or to yourself, Y1 is right; you are well under the influence of N.T. Wright. However, by saying that you have puzzled out the truths of the Scripture for yourself without any outside help, you place yourself in the illustrious company of Charles Taze Russell and a host of other heretics. 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in a multitude of counsellors there is safety' (Proverbs 11:14).

 

[agedman]

I have long given up any hope of persuading you of Biblical truth. I post in the hope of reaching those who read the posts without posting themselves.
If you have read my OPs, you have not responded to them, and therefore have certainly not rebutted them. Your last three posts have been completely devoid of Scripture. It is therefore difficult to point out discrepancies in something that isn't there. And whether you admit it, either to me or to yourself, Y1 is right; you are well under the influence of N.T. Wright. However, by saying that you have puzzled out the truths of the Scripture for yourself without any outside help, you place yourself in the illustrious company of Charles Taze Russell and a host of other heretics. 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in a multitude of counsellors there is safety' (Proverbs 11:14).

Truly confusing is the persistent missing of God’s wrath in relation to the crucifixion, as has been repeatedly shown in the threads, yet the continual insistence that Wrath of God poured out upon Christ is Scriptural.

If it isn’t even implied, what is the authority?

Tradition,

Pure tradition.

 

[JonC]

I have long given up any hope of persuading you of Biblical truth. I post in the hope of reaching those who read the posts without posting themselves.
If you have read my OPs, you have not responded to them, and therefore have certainly not rebutted them. Your last three posts have been completely devoid of Scripture. It is therefore difficult to point out discrepancies in something that isn't there. And whether you admit it, either to me or to yourself, Y1 is right; you are well under the influence of N.T. Wright. However, by saying that you have puzzled out the truths of the Scripture for yourself without any outside help, you place yourself in the illustrious company of Charles Taze Russell and a host of other heretics. 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in a multitude of counsellors there is safety' (Proverbs 11:14).

Yes, and I you...for a time. My only hope was to get you to take your eyes off tradition and look, for a moment, at Scripture. And I know I failed, but perhaps God will use this failure in facilitating others when asked to accept doctrines like papal authority, baptism regeneration, and PSA as implied to turn to the Word of God and see what is actually written.

We often toss dust around, like your implication my insistence on Scripture likens me to the JW's. But I can't ignore the false accusation you offer here, that snide insult that the passages I offered which form my doctrine is a result of being under the influence of N.T. Wright. I do not enjoy pointing out your lack of character, I at one time thought better of you, but I tire of the lie. You cannot argue so you simply post false accusations as a smoke screen.

Lean not on your own understanding. Trust God's Word. Scripture really is sufficient. It doesn't need your help.

 

[Van]

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.

Traditional views conflate Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross with our redemption and reconciliation when God transfers us out of the domain of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.

Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation from God's wrath for the whole world, all of fallen mankind.
Redemption is the act of salvation where God transfers us as individuals into Christ where we are made alive together with Christ.
Reconciliation is the result of salvation where our sin burden has been removed and we are united with Christ.

 

[agedman]

Does sin create a debt?

Debt is taken as an accounting term. That one accrues a debt when the surplus of cash is not available to draw from and credit by the lender is granted.

Also, the matter of borrowing out of desire and need one is considered a debtor until that borrowed is returned.

So, in this way, does sin create a debt, or are folks debtors to sin?

Penal Substitution Theory must also contain that element of Satisfaction, the question is, satisfaction for what?

If it is a debt of sin, then where in the Scriptures does Sin appear in that light?

What did humankind borrow or purchase on credit to go into debt?

Much is made by some presenting the cross as paying a debt for sin.

Should such not have at least one Scripture for support?

 

[agedman]

Another aspect of Penal Substitution must be that of Redemption.

Redemption comes in three basic forms in the NT.

1) The believer is purchased by Christ.

Prior to salvation, a person is a "slave to sin." (John 8) They are owned by the god of this world and the world system is all that slave has to choose from and to work. There is no freedom of choice other than within the confines of what this world offers and the god of this world provides.

So, the Christ purchases the "slave to sin" from this world, (1 Corinthians 6) not by any effort of the slave but by the purchase of the Cross, the work of the Holy Spirit and predetermination of the Father.

2) The believer is taken off the market by Christ.

Prior to salvation, a person was purchased at will by all manner of evil, enslaved by many things of this world, and even people who would have evil influence over that person. The law of God was a door keeper keeping away faith. (Galatians 3:23)

So, when Christ purchased the "slave to sin" he also sets them no longer as slaves, but adopted sons. No longer able to be bought and sold in the markets of the world, but as a son to do the will of the Father of heaven. (Galatians 4)

3) The believer is given true "freedom" and "freedom of choice."

Prior to salvation, a person could only select from that which the god of this world offered and controlled. Such freedom had the appearance of "freedom to choose" but was indeed confined to what was offered and available by what was ultimately infested with evil and decay.

So, when Christ purchased the "slave to sin" he also gave to them a New Nature. All the attributes associated with that nature which includes a new will would not be presented in mature form, but as a newborn learns to talk and walk as a human, so the new born believer learns to talk and walk in this new nature. They add to that new nature such characteristics as virtue, knowledge, self control, ... as these are manifested God grants love, joy, peace, long suffering... That the believer be complete and fit for service.

Atonement is not just what was accomplished by the death, burial and resurrection.

It is also that of redemption of those chosen by the Father to be His adopted child.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

I think you'll find it is.

What IS the issue?

Was that suffering "payment" for sin, when the Scriptures state that it is the "blood shed?"
From Isaiah 53:4ff:
'Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.' What griefs and sorrows are these? In His life, Christ suffered all the pains and sorrows due to us from sin. He was due none of these things as the sinless Son of God, but as our substitute, he carried them even in His life.
'We esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted.' Why would 'we' (Jewish people) consider Christ to be smitten by God and afflicted? Because He was hanging on a wooden cross. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree.' So, quite reasonably, the Jews thought that Christ was under the curse of God. And of course they were right in that. 'But He was wounded [or 'pierced'] for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities.' Isaiah doesn't say that Christ was not stricken etc. by God, because He clearly was. 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him......' What verse 5 tells us is why He was smitten and afflicted; it was as substitute for His people. 'For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.' The punishment was penal. We deserved the punishment, but He received it.

And, was that suffering the "wrath of God" when the Scriptures do not indicate it as such?

Absolutely! 'God is angry with sinners every day.' 'The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.' BUT 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' 'God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us.' God's judicial wrath is transferred to the substitute, to Christ made sin. It is so clear, so obvious, I can't understand how you don't get it. If God has not transferred my sin to Christ, I must pay for it myself.

Such verses as "the Lord has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all" do not translate into the suffering being payment.

Why not? 'He was pierced for our transgressions.'

It is that gift God gave to the Son to carry. Such gift that none of earthly might could bear.

Where are Christ's sufferings described as a gift? In what respect are they a gift? God's grace is described as a gift in Romans 5:15, and so it is, but the gift is the transfer of our sins to Christ.

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.

I can't agree with this. The blood of the sacrifice spoke of its death. Otherwise Christ, having shed His blood could have been revived.

Where 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.

That's very imaginative, and I don't have a problem with it except that there's far more evidence for P.S. than for that.

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.

Absolutely! God laid our sins upon Christ so that He might suffer the penalty for sin instead of us. Penal Substitution.

Why would God punish His Son for doing what He wanted Him to do, and in fact actually placing the iniquity upon the Son?

Because God must punish sin. 'The soul that sins shall die,' and Christ has borne our sins and suffered the penalty instead of us

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.

Absolutely!


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.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have long given up any hope of persuading you of Biblical truth. I post in the hope of reaching those who read the posts without posting themselves.
If you have read my OPs, you have not responded to them, and therefore have certainly not rebutted them. Your last three posts have been completely devoid of Scripture. It is therefore difficult to point out discrepancies in something that isn't there. And whether you admit it, either to me or to yourself, Y1 is right; you are well under the influence of N.T. Wright. However, by saying that you have puzzled out the truths of the Scripture for yourself without any outside help, you place yourself in the illustrious company of Charles Taze Russell and a host of other heretics. 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in a multitude of counsellors there is safety' (Proverbs 11:14).

Jon C can claim all that he wants that he came to his belief now on the Cross from just studying the scriptures, but why does His theology on this issue follow NT Wright step by step then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why do you cling so to this thinking of God "executing His wrath and punishment?"

Would it not be proper for you to be able to actually use Scriptures to point to such wrath and punishment to "atone for lost sinners?"

Where else in ALL Scriptures does wrath and punishment EVER atone for sin?

See such extra biblical pronunciations are RCC thinking, that which leads to purgatory and indulgence purchases. That some sinfulness must be "punished" in order to be atoned.

I "keep clinging" to it, due to the fact that the scriptures themselves teach it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Truly confusing is the persistent missing of God’s wrath in relation to the crucifixion, as has been repeatedly shown in the threads, yet the continual insistence that Wrath of God poured out upon Christ is Scriptural.

If it isn’t even implied, what is the authority?

Tradition,

Pure tradition.

Jesus took upon himself the sins of the elect to get saved by His death, paid their sin debt in full, and appeased/propitiated the wrath of God towards us...

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you'll find it is.

Jesus paid the sin debt in full, taking the very wrath of God that you and I would have received for being sin breakers, is that not all the way through the NT, especially pauline theology on the atonement?

 

[Van]

Does sin create a debt?
So,,,, does sin create a debt, or are folks debtors to sin?

If it is a debt of sin, then where in the Scriptures does Sin appear in that light?

Should such not have at least one Scripture for support?

Colossians 2:14
having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

 

[agedman]

I think you'll find it is.

I'm a bit confused by the layout of the post.

However, assuming you suggest that the suffering was evidenced of the Wrath of God rather than that which humankind considered as expressions of righteousness done by them (just as Paul as Saul was persuaded before conversion) then truly there must be a reason.

Such reason must then fall into the realms of retribution thinking, (tit for tat) and retribution theology is not supported by the expanse of Scripture (retribution theology is refuted in the book of Job).

Why not consider that God did not pour out wrath, but was truly appeased by the offering up of the Son, and that for the offering to be complete (death and resurrection) the Father withheld support, that which before sustained the Son against the vile intents of humanity, that ultimately the humanity would be confirmed (as was the pharaoh) in the bitterness against God.

Would this not be confirmed by statements that Christ "laid down His life" and "no man takes it from me" and express the great suffering of the Savior but do not at all mention that it was related to the wrath of God?

How is it that such "wrath of God" statements were originally formed?

Did the early church actually teach that the suffering was from God, or did they teach the suffering was for God?

 

[Yeshua1]

Colossians 2:14
having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Very good, van!

 

[Van]

Another aspect of Penal Substitution must be that of Redemption.
Redemption comes in three basic forms in the NT.

1) The believer is purchased by Christ.

Where in scripture does it say Christ purchased only believers or those who would believe? Scripture teaches Christ bought with His blood all mankind, including those never to be saved,
1 Corinthians 6:20
For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Acts 20:28
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

1 Timothy 2:6
who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Clearly scripture teaches Christ purchased with His blood all mankind, those saved and to be saved, and those unsaved and never to be saved. Any other view is unbiblical and false.

 

[agedman]

Colossians 2:14
having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The debt was the decrees against us. That is the law which blocked access to the Father.

It was NOT sin that blocked access.

This is why Romans states of the believer (one in Christ) there is therefore NO condemnation. No violation of the law. Not that the believer is without sin, but that the LAW has no power over condemnation.

What stood as a curtain of law between the believer and God was cancelled.

 

[JonC]

Colossians 2:14
having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

It was not a debt of sin but a debt consisting of the decrees against against us. Christ has fulfilled the Law, which no longer testifies against us for we are in Him.

 

[agedman]

Where in scripture does it say Christ purchased only believers or those who would believe? Scripture teaches Christ bought with His blood all mankind, including those never to be saved,
1 Corinthians 6:20
For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Acts 20:28
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

1 Timothy 2:6
who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Clearly scripture teaches Christ purchased with His blood all mankind, those saved and to be saved, and those unsaved and never to be saved. Any other view is unbiblical and false.

Van,
I think you may have missed that the post was on redemption of believers and how the three Greek words translated as redemption in the NT impact the believer.


It was NOT on the blood shed for all for the forgiveness of sin.

The post was the three aspects used for redeeming, from the all to whom forgiveness is given, those in whom God chooses to adopt.

 

[Van]

The debt was the decrees against us. That is the law which blocked access to the Father.

It was NOT sin that blocked access.

This is why Romans states of the believer (one in Christ) there is therefore NO condemnation. No violation of the law. Not that the believer is without sin, but that the LAW has no power over condemnation.

What stood as a curtain of law between the believer and God was cancelled.

Yet another straight-up denial of scripture. And note folks the number of completely bogus assertions. Did those who died before Moses gave the Law have access to the Father? Of course not.

Has God forgiven your sins and remembers them no more forever? Pay no attention to this poster who posts obvious falsehoods, one after another.