Penal Substitution

Perhaps you can find a Scripture that actually states that God in rage punished His own self to the point of death.

I haven’t found it.

 

There is room to accept forensic substitution IF one keeps in mind that just as in the OT the emphasis must be upon the blood shed.

Too often, the emphasis has been on the suffering, but that suffering was as God designed and was pleased.

There was no “wrath of God” upon the Son as some would desire to picture as being included as a suffered sacrifice necessary to make some payment due to either Satan or God. As if suffering can gain God’s favor of salvation.

The payment of SIN IS DEATH! No suffering will gain salvation.

As Christ “became sin for us” the result had to be death.

But the death did not bring redemption or even the forgiveness of sins.



Such responsibility was assigned to the blood. (Without the seeding of blood ....)


This is the testimony of the slain lamb of the OT. Certainly, the purity of the lamb and how the lamb (manner and ceremonial aspects) was slain was important. They were used to distinguish the sacrifice from all others slain.

The prophetic statements of the suffering savior show the importance, too. Again, as distinguishing from all others. This is part of Peter’s statement when pointing out it was “this same” Jesus.

But what brought redemption was not the ceremonial trappings, the purity of the lamb, not even the manner of death.

It was the blood.

 

Exactly!!

Who did those things?

Did God reach down in rage and abuse His own Son as if He were some villain?

 

I disagree.

The question is not over PAYMENT, because that reduces the sinfulness to some determined amount able to be resolved by remuneration of merrit.

Such thinking is unscriptural!

What is the ONLY acceptable presentation to God?

The Blood.

Remove the blood or distract as some do from the blood, there is no salvation.

 

Because

Martin, there is no desire to denigrate your thinking, but it is important to keep the focus.

Certainly Christ suffered. He did so because it PLEASED the Father, NOT because the Father poured “wrath” as some would account on His own Son.

Such thinking of God having displeasure toward the Son is not found in Scripture.

The suffering Savior prophecies were to be used as signifiers, signs, distinguishing Christ from all pretenders. Again the reason Peter pointed out the “who” in his message.

The suffering of the Saviour did not purchase salvation by suffering.

Surly God recognizes the efforts of men, even rewards efforts. But no effort - even suffering - touches the hem of salvation.

That PSA is modified away from the blood, it become as good as empty words.

 

NO!!

There is not a single Scripture to sustain God abused His own Son, or that God acted viciously towards the one in whom He is “well pleased.”

God doesn’t even do that to erring children of His (believers).

Humans whipped, chastised, mocked... the Christ, not His Father

Humans pierced Him thrusting the cross into the ground with such force to move the bones out of joint but not breaking them.

Humans NOT the Father.

Humans and even nature performed exactly as God spoke it would happen because He purposed it. However, the Father didn’t have to be some monster, He allowed humankind and nature to deliver what was the ungodly estate of their own.

How then is the “wrath of God” seen on the cross?

It is found in the very words of the Savior!

“Father! Why have you forsaken me?”

Do you not know that in every instance (except one mentioned which is yet to happen) when the wrath of God is on display, it is result of God withholding Himself and allowing the ungodliness of nature and humans?

 

What, you actually are not taking my response as serious?

I read your work.

I see weakness that needed modification

You think such analyses and comparison to Scripture principle is not taking you seriously?

Perhaps it is that when your thinking was placed into the actual account of the cross it showed up the hidden cracks and structural weakness.

Martin I consider your effort worthy, but your conclusion misguided by prior bias. Hence you feel your efforts have been trivialized.

Perhaps when you regather your strength, you will return to this important matter.

 

Certainly,

However, is not your position that God did the breaking?

The Lord was broken for me, is wonderful.

However, God cannot break Himself, but, as Christ stated, lay down His life.

Does Him laying down, as the Father willed, (for He did nothing that the Father did not instruct) result in the Father being filled with rage?

Such thinking of a wrath filled God is inconsistent with both the Scriptures and the revealed character of God.

However, for the cross to be accomplished, The Father had to withhold From the Son, forsake the Son, allow nature and human ungodliness to do all that was prophecied in damaging the Son.

Yes, certainly, Christ was broken. Just as the prophets and He foretold.

God didn’t do it to Himself, God laid down His arm of sustaining and strength and allowed humans and nature to expose their own ungodliness.