The just and the justifier

[JonC]

Again, who paid the due penalty for my sins, who bore the deserved wrath of God against me in my sin state?

Again, what verse are you talking about????? You know....the BIBLE????

You were forgiven your sins. And unless you can come up with a passage we can look at, I've no interest in discussing your theories. Keep it biblical, brother.

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, what verse are you talking about????? You know....the BIBLE????

You were forgiven your sins. And unless you can come up with a passage we can look at, I've no interest in discussing your theories. Keep it biblical, brother.

Hebrews 53/ 1 Peter 2:24

 

[JonC]

Hebrews 53/ 1 Peter 2:24

Peter speaks of Christ bearing our sins - not a "sin debt". We all agree Christ bore our sins.

There is no Hebrews 53.

I told you I'm not interested in discussing your theory. What verse are you looking at in terms of the "sin debt" - not verses we already agree upon (i.e., 1 Peter 2:24) but verses specifically speaking of this sin debt you had to have paid on your behalf?

 

[Yeshua1]

Peter speaks of Christ bearing our sins - not a "sin debt". We all agree Christ bore our sins.

There is no Hebrews 53.

I told you I'm not interested in discussing your theory. What verse are you looking at in terms of the "sin debt" - not verses we already agree upon (i.e., 1 Peter 2:24) but verses specifically speaking of this sin debt you had to have paid on your behalf?

My mistake, isaiah 53 was meant.
Martin, myself, archangel have all responded to your postings, and all of us have used the scriptures to show that the theology of PST is not "extra biblical", but is indeed the primary atonement theology of Jesus and His Apostles!
You seem to be really getting hung up on the truth that Jesus experienced the wrath of God that we were all deserving, as he took and bore that in our stated as our substitute before the father!

 

[JonC]

Hebrews 53/ 1 Peter 2:24

Actually, brother, I can save you some trouble.

There are no passages that actually say Christ bore God's wrath or that Christ paid our sin debt (as your theory states). These are theological conclusions that some make to answer how God accomplished the redemption that Scripture tells us He accomplished. That's why the Theory of Penal Substitution is not a universal theory (it is not even the majority theory). It is also why Penal Substitution Theory is one of many theories and not simply passages of Scripture.

What we argue about is not whether or not Penal Substitution Theory is in the Bible (it is not) but whether it is biblical (whether or not it is a possible solution to what is not actually stated). My position is it is not.

 

[JonC]

My mistake, isaiah 53 was meant.
Martin, myself, archangel have all responded to your postings, and all of us have used the scriptures to show that the theology of PST is not "extra biblical", but is indeed the primary atonement theology of Jesus and His Apostles!
You seem to be really getting hung up on the truth that Jesus experienced the wrath of God that we were all deserving, as he took and bore that in our stated as our substitute before the father!

Isaiah 53 does not speak of a "sin debt". You are mistaken.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You still have the same problem. The verse cannot mean that God literally made Jesus to be sin. Even your conclusion (that God considered Jesus to be sinful) does not take the verse literally.

You still don't understand. I have never, ever said that God considered the Lord Jesus to be sinful, not ever considered it for a moment. He was 'made sin.' For the third time, we compare Scripture with Scripture and come up with Isaiah 53:6. The Lord laid upon Him all the sin and wickedness of His people. This can only have been by imputation; He was made the very epitome of sin. But God regarded Him as the Sinbearer, not as a sinner.

So agreeing that God did not literally make Jesus evil, unholy, unrighteous, sin....the problem you have is that your version (your altering of the literal word "sin") denies the nature of God as presented in the Bible. It makes God a liar. It denies Scripture. So even here you have to choose another meaning.

It does nothing of the sort and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Scripture does not say that Jesus was imputed our sin. You are relying (again) on your theory to interpret Scripture.

But that is exactly what it does say in Isaiah 53:5-6.

Our iniquity was laid upon Him. He propitiated our sin. He bore our sin. But he was not considered by God a sinner (at least per Scripture, I know your theory holds otherwise).

You know nothing of the sort. You know perfectly well that over and over again I have denied that He was a sinner or that God the Father viewed Him as such. If you don't understand what I'm saying, you can always ask rather than traduce me by saying things which are flat out untrue and which I have already denied. What I have said is that God treated Him as such.

Me too. I'm good with what the Bible says of penal substitution. I'm not good with the theory that God was wrathful to Jesus (I find the theory demeaning to God, exalting to man above man's station, and unbiblical).

Once again, you are attributing things to me which not only have I never said, but which I have denied over and over again.
However, if you find the Biblical doctrine of Penal Substitution demeaning to God, that is your problem. The Moslems agree with you, however.

Now that you have studied the passage in Deuteronomy, do you realize your error? It is not saying that by hanging on a tree one is cursed (it is not a magic incantation or spell to cause someone to be cursed by God).

Deuteronomy 21:22-23
22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Of course it absolutely says that, and I quote, 'Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.' How much clearer do you want it? Those words are the ones that the Holy Spirit wants us to concentrate on, because He caused Paul to quote them, and no others, in Galatians 3:13.

Even your "proof" denies your theory. The Jews (not God) considered Jesus to be guilty and a blasphemer and they had Him crucified. But only because Jesus lay down His own life. He became a curse for us.

Once again you reveal that you have no idea what I've been arguing. Or rather, I suspect that you know exactly what I've been arguing but would sooner misrepresent me than discuss with me. To suggest that God considered the Lord Jesus to be guilty and a blasphemer is a monstrous heresy. I hope ( but do not expect) that you will withdraw these comments and apologize for them.

You would do well to pay closer attention to the context of passages, brother. Allow the plain words of Scripture to dictate your theology rather than reading your theories into individual verses.

Well here are some plain words of Scripture for you: 'Anyone who is hanged on a tree is under God's curse.' Now before you misrepresent me again, please understand. Christ never, ever, at any time ceased to be the Beloved Son of the Father--have you got that? Have you taken it in? Will you stop telling untruths about me? It is as sinbearer that Christ suffered God's curse and experienced His righteous anger, not against His own Person, but against sin.

I know, brother, that you cannot understand Scripture except through the theory you have chosen.

I know, JonC, that you cannot understand Scripture except through the theory that you have chosen. That has been clear for quite some time.

I was once the same. I couldn't understand how others did not see the theory throughout.

Galatians 5:7-8.

So please understand that I am not trying to be rude, or "generate heat".

Perhaps that is true. Perhaps it is not your deliberate policy to distort what other people say. Perhaps you are temperamentally unable to discuss these matters without snide comments and downright lies concerning those with whom you debate. I would like to believe that is the case.

I would like for others who read the thread, who are able (perhaps less vested in the Theory) to see beyond the theoretical suppositions through which you read the Bible, to consider what is actually taught in Scripture. I want them to see the depth and richness of what has been taught and passed down through the majority of Church history as compared to the shallow and unbiblical "doctrine" we've inherited through the Reformation as contemporary churches have adopted theory and tossed off Scripture itself. I want them to ask why Christ lived, rather than looking at His birth and death as the only relevant milestones to our redemption. I want them to consider the passages your theory rejects. I want them to read the four Gospels as well as the Pauline epistles and develop their theology from the whole.

I would like for others who read the thread, who are able (perhaps less vested in your theory) to see beyond the theoretical suppositions through which you read the Bible, and the poverty of your expositions, and to consider what is actually taught in Scripture. I want them to see the depth and richness of what has been taught and passed down through the majority of Church history as compared to the shallow and unbiblical "doctrine" we've inherited by ditching the Reformation as contemporary churches have abandoned theory and tossed off Scripture itself for a sort of touchy-feely pseudo-theology where the love of God must always trump His holiness and righteousness.

So you are not my target audience. I know you will never leave your theory. You're too invested. And I don't blame you at all. It was very difficult for me to examine the theory against Scripture. But others, particularly the younger generations who have already noticed the fly in the ointment, may be more open to Scripture (what "is written" rather than applied).

So you are not my target audience. I know you will never leave your theory. You're too invested. Having once left the truth, it's very humbling to admit to oneself that one has made a blunder. I hope you will manage that in due course.

I am through debating with you. I have been on Christian discussion forums for twenty years and have never discussed with anyone who so distorted what I have said and dropped so many snide comments, totally unsupported by Scripture into the conversation. You have apologized to me privately for your behaviour and then continued in an even worse manner. I very much regret that I have stooped to your level from time to time, and responded in kind. I apologize for that to everyone on the board except you.

I am very happy to be judged by the doctrinal posts I have made on this and other threads concerning Penal Substitution. It is a vitally important doctrine, and I assure all those who consider this doctrine that If Christ has not borne God's righteous anger against sin and sinners on your behalf, you will have to bear it yourselves.

With that I am finished on this board as long as @JonC remains as a moderator.

 

[JonC]

You still don't understand. I have never, ever said that God considered the Lord Jesus to be sinful, not ever considered it for a moment. He was 'made sin.' For the third time, we compare Scripture with Scripture and come up with Isaiah 53:6. The Lord laid upon Him all the sin and wickedness of His people. This can only have been by imputation; He was made the very epitome of sin. But God regarded Him as the Sinbearer, not as a sinner.

It does nothing of the sort and you should be ashamed of yourself.
But that is exactly what it does say in Isaiah 53:5-6.
You know nothing of the sort. You know perfectly well that over and over again I have denied that He was a sinner or that God the Father viewed Him as such. If you don't understand what I'm saying, you can always ask rather than traduce me by saying things which are flat out untrue and which I have already denied. What I have said is that God treated Him as such.

Once again, you are attributing things to me which not only have I never said, but which I have denied over and over again.
However, if you find the Biblical doctrine of Penal Substitution demeaning to God, that is your problem. The Moslems agree with you, however.

Of course it absolutely says that, and I quote, 'Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.' How much clearer do you want it? Those words are the ones that the Holy Spirit wants us to concentrate on, because He caused Paul to quote them, and no others, in Galatians 3:13.

Once again you reveal that you have no idea what I've been arguing. Or rather, I suspect that you know exactly what I've been arguing but would sooner misrepresent me than discuss with me. To suggest that God considered the Lord Jesus to be guilty and a blasphemer is a monstrous heresy. I hope ( but do not expect) that you will withdraw these comments and apologize for them.

Well here are some plain words of Scripture for you: 'Anyone who is hanged on a tree is under God's curse.' Now before you misrepresent me again, please understand. Christ never, ever, at any time ceased to be the Beloved Son of the Father--have you got that? Have you taken it in? Will you stop telling untruths about me? It is as sinbearer that Christ suffered God's curse and experienced His righteous anger, not against His own Person, but against sin.

I know, JonC, that you cannot understand Scripture except through the theory that you have chosen. That has been clear for quite some time.

Galatians 5:7-8.
Perhaps that is true. Perhaps it is not your deliberate policy to distort what other people say. Perhaps you are temperamentally unable to discuss these matters without snide comments and downright lies concerning those with whom you debate. I would like to believe that is the case.

I would like for others who read the thread, who are able (perhaps less vested in your theory) to see beyond the theoretical suppositions through which you read the Bible, and the poverty of your expositions, and to consider what is actually taught in Scripture. I want them to see the depth and richness of what has been taught and passed down through the majority of Church history as compared to the shallow and unbiblical "doctrine" we've inherited by ditching the Reformation as contemporary churches have abandoned theory and tossed off Scripture itself for a sort of touchy-feely pseudo-theology where the love of God must always trump His holiness and righteousness.

So you are not my target audience. I know you will never leave your theory. You're too invested. Having once left the truth, it's very humbling to admit to oneself that one has made a blunder. I hope you will manage that in due course.

I am through debating with you. I have been on Christian discussion forums for twenty years and have never discussed with anyone who so distorted what I have said and dropped so many snide comments, totally unsupported by Scripture into the conversation. You have apologized to me privately for your behaviour and then continued in an even worse manner. I very much regret that I have stooped to your level from time to time, and responded in kind. I apologize for that to everyone on the board except you.

I am very happy to be judged by the doctrinal posts I have made on this and other threads concerning Penal Substitution. It is a vitally important doctrine, and I assure all those who consider this doctrine that If Christ has not borne God's righteous anger against sin and sinners on your behalf, you will have to bear it yourselves.

With that I am finished on this board as long as @JonC remains as a moderator.

So? We disagree. You are the one who said that I didn't accept the plain teaching of Scripture (although I copied that claim several times).

I apologized to you because you took offense to my use of "tradition", linking that to your upbringing. But if you can't argue and disagree, then perhaps a debate board is not the place you should be spending your time. Sometimes on boards like this we disagree and just have to be men about it instead of whining to the board or staff because we get our feelings hurt.

I am not going to pretend that I believe your theory is biblical because I do not believe it is. I am not going to pretend that I am arguing to change your mind because I am not (I don't think you will). Get over it.

 

[TCassidy]

I am locking this thread until this bilateral hissy fit is resolved.