A minor quibble here. What is the curse? It is a pronouncement by the creator of the universe and absolute ruler of it, of woe that will be pronounced upon the one who rebels.
I understand what you are saying here, but I believe that you are relying a bit on presuppositions to apply a specific and narrow definition of the word.
By curse I was referring to “a cause of great harm”. Things that men do are often meant as a curse but God uses it for good. Things that men do often becomes a curse. I did not mean the word in the sense you took it (God or man uttering a curse type of thing).
That was just miscommunication, and my fault for not clarifying as the word has a very broad range of meaning. My apologies on that one.
I would just add that when Christ is put under the wages of sin, sin that was not his in any way but ours then it is proper to say he suffered vicariously or instead of us those wages no matter how you word it. And while true that the direct actors were acting under Satan in this, in a providential sense the Triune God had engineered and planned this as scripture plainly teaches and as you say elsewhere in the same post.
I would clarify here as well.
Christ was not put under the wages of sin, but submitted Himself to come under the wages of sin. Yes, these were consequences that He did not earn (He is sinless). I would not say that he suffered vicariously or instead of us those wages. That is not correct.
He suffered what we suffer in order to free us from its bondage, to remove its sting. It is solidarity (unity; reconciliation of man and God in the Person of Christ Jesus).
He suffered the wages of OUR sin. This was not in our place (instead of us) but as a representative (what is called “representative substitution”) of man (think “Son of Man”).
I do agree that Christ suffered and died according to the predetermined plan of God and as an act of obedience to God. But this does not mean that it was God who was punishing Christ. When we take it that far we miss the point of the Cross entirely.
I would add, not in a sense of controversy, but just in addition, that fulfilling the righteousness of God means that he fulfilled all the claims of the Law and as said above it was for us. And in the Law is do this and live and don't do this and die. That was God's pronouncement.
I agree and disagree (go figure). We also have to remember that we are talking about the righteousness of God made manifest apart from the Law. Too often we associate divine righteousness with the Law, either as a part of the Law or somehow eternally linked with the Law. But if this is true then God’s righteousness can never stand apart from the Law.
That said, I agree that Christ inherited the blessings of the Old Covenant through His obedience to God (His obedience even to death on the Cross). This is where Adam failed (his disobedience not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).
As long as you have that last part in it, "under the curse, by the predetermined plan of God", I have no objection.
Yes, that is important. Too often in disagreements over atonement things are completely ignored (like that it was God’s pleasure to crush Him, which Scripture also states in Acts as “God’s predetermined plan”.
Here again, yes. But don't forget exactly what this obedience consisted of. Christ shedding his blood and dying in our place and for our transgressions.
I have to point out that you are adding to Scripture with this statement. What does the Bible say that Christ’s obedience consisted of?
Does the Bible say “Christ shedding his blood and dying in our place and for our transgressions”? No, it does not. I am not sure that you intentionally made the addition or if you were simply typing off the top of your head.
Scripture tells us that this obedience was Christ emptying “Himself
by taking the form of a bond-servant
and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death i]">[on a cross. For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and
that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This obedience was becoming one of us, “sharing our infirmity”. Nowhere in the Bible is this obedience defined as “Christ shedding his blood and dying in our place and for our transgressions”. Instead Scripture tells us that Christ’s obedience is exactly what I have been describing over the past several threads – this unity or solidarity with man, reconciling God and mankind in the person of Christ Jesus.
what I mean when I say penal substitution is at the core. The above is also what I am referring to when I say that what you presented in the above post is totally alright with me IF the lack of mention of penal substitution is because you simply can't exhaustively say everything each time you explain something. But it the omission is designed to deliberately omit penal substitution because it is opposed you need to know that Owen, most reformed theologians, most Baptist theologians are on record as declaring such teaching a damnable heresy. It would be like if someone were to preach a gospel message and not once mention the virgin birth. It could be just omitted for the sake of brevity or the maturity of the hearers and thus should not be a problem. But if it is omitted because of a conscious rejection of what that truly means to Christ's qualifications to act as our redeemer then it would be a serious heresy.
On this, I can clarify.
It is true that we do not mention every single thing each time we post in a discussion. For example, you mention here that the Virgin Birth is true. But you did not mention on this thread that it was also important that Christ be born of a virgin. We simply focus on our direct arguments. So I get your point on that and agree. An omission from a post should not be considered an omission in belief or doctrine.
BUT here I have made a conscious rejection of Penal Substitution Theory. The reason is I do believe it a serious heresy. By heresy I do not mean something that excludes somebody from salvation or from being a Christian but instead a serious error and addition to God’s Word that alters what is actually written and revealed in Scripture to be true.
Do I know that Owen considered omitting Penal Substitution Theory to be a damnable heresy? Yes (I did at one time as well). But Owen also considered refraining from baptizing infants (infants of believers) as a damnable heresy. So you and I would be heretics per Owen.
That does not bother me as Owen is not my authority. And, of course, Penal Substitution has been called a heresy by many as well (many Baptists, BTW). So that is neither here nor there. We can both point to men who think the other affirms heresy. What matters is God and God’s Word. That is where I have to stand on that.
