No Deal with the Devil: Christ's Ransom and the Justice of God

[JesusFan]

Not “someone” … “the soul that sins” MUST DIE.
[for the record, everyone that I know either HAS or WILL die, so the penalty shall be paid.]

We die due to the judgement of god towards us as sinners, so its either us or Jesus who dies for those sins

 

[Arial]

Not “someone” … “the soul that sins” MUST DIE.
[for the record, everyone that I know either HAS or WILL die, so the penalty shall be paid.]

As Voddie Baucham often said: "The death rate is 100%. One per person."

 

[John Bauer]

Not “someone”—“the soul that sins” MUST DIE.

I can't speak for him, of course, but he may have meant "someone" in the sense of either the sinner or the substitute. One or the other, someone must pay the due penalty.

(For the record, everyone that I know either has or will die. So, the penalty shall be paid.)

I lose track of who believes what around here, so that's the reason for this question:

Do you accept or reject the penal substitutionary atonement doctrine?

 

[Eleanor]

I believe it is clear the elect were redeemed from the works of the devil by which the elect were captive by. Acts 26 18

That is only part of it, not the whole of it, which is redemption from the condemnation into which we were born (Eph 2:3).

 

[brightfame52]

That is only part of it, not the whole of it, which is redemption from the condemnation into which we were born (Eph 2:3).

Yes it is part of it!

 

[JesusFan]

I can't speak for him, of course, but he may have meant "someone" in the sense of either the sinner or the substitute. One or the other, someone must pay the due penalty.



I lose track of who believes what around here, so that's the reason for this question:

Do you accept or reject the penal substitutionary atonement doctrine?

I affirm that would be the primary and most biblical view of the Atonement

 

[atpollard]

I can't speak for him, of course, but he may have meant "someone" in the sense of either the sinner or the substitute. One or the other, someone must pay the due penalty.

Yes, but my point was that “what he meant” is not “what scripture said”.

I lose track of who believes what around here, so that's the reason for this question:

Do you accept or reject the penal substitutionary atonement doctrine?

I am on the fence but leaning away. I accept 90%, but reject the “wrath of the Father transferred to the Son” aspect as that appears to lack scripture support and contradicts scripture on God’s Justice.

Punishing the innocent for the guilty is forbidden by God.
God repeats that he will “remember sins no more”.
Scripture describes wrath as stored for the day of wrath and delivered on those that reject God.

I accept that Jesus suffered the PENALTY for sin (as scripture affirms).
I accept that Jesus is the SUBSTITUTE the us … the Second Adam (as scripture affirms).
I accept that Jesus ATONED for us, bridging the gap between us and God (as scripture affirms).

I cannot accept that the Father requires us to forgive freely, but God cannot forgive without first receiving his “pound of flesh” from an innocent man (as no scripture affirms).

I guess that places me closer to “Christus Victor”.

 

[Arial]

I cannot accept that the Father requires us to forgive freely, but God cannot forgive without first receiving his “pound of flesh” from an innocent man (as no scripture affirms).

We don't forgive unto eternal life.
If God gave eternal forgiveness to a person without his justice against sin being satisfied, he would no longer be simple (not made up of parts). His mercy would surpass/ override/be greater than his justice.

It was not for his sins that Jesus bore the wrath of God, but for the sins of those God was giving to him. God was not extracting his "pound of flesh" on Jesus. That is emotional language meant to sway an argument in one direction. The penalty was against sin, on the flesh (like our flesh) of Jesus. His body, a body and nature like ours but without sin or a sin nature, substituted for us. He was the ransom for the sake of justice.

 

[atpollard]

We don't forgive unto eternal life.
If God gave eternal forgiveness to a person without his justice against sin being satisfied, he would no longer be simple (not made up of parts). His mercy would surpass/ override/be greater than his justice.

It was not for his sins that Jesus bore the wrath of God, but for the sins of those God was giving to him. God was not extracting his "pound of flesh" on Jesus. That is emotional language meant to sway an argument in one direction. The penalty was against sin, on the flesh (like our flesh) of Jesus. His body, a body and nature like ours but without sin or a sin nature, substituted for us. He was the ransom for the sake of justice.

I was specifically asked for my position, so I gave it. I almost didn’t respond to the request because experience has shown that what should be at best a TERTIARY ISSUE (not even rising to the level of a secondary issue) is far too often treated as a PRIMARY (salvific) issue. Our opinions about WHY Jesus did what Jesus did (absent scriptural proof) is hardly a hill we should be willing to die on … or burn heretics on.

Now, if you disagree with me about the TRANSFER OF WRATH … so what? You do not answer to me and I do not answer to you. Each will answer to their own master, who is able to make them stand!

If you feel the uncontrollable need to change my mind, then save the contrary opinions and present the Biblical verses and exegesis to support your case. THAT is what will change my mind. God’s Word, rightly divided.

 

[brightfame52]

Punishing the innocent for the guilty is forbidden by God.

But didn't the sacrifices picture that? Why you think the sacrifices had to be without blemish

 

[atpollard]

But didn't the sacrifices picture that? Why you think the sacrifices had to be without blemish

Does God forbid the punishment of the innocent for the guilty?
Have I correctly, or incorrectly paraphrased scripture?
(Let us establish whether I have lied or spoken the truth.)

If I have LIED, then I am a LIAR and what difference is the opinion of a LIAR to your question?
If I have told the TRUTH, then the sacrifices cannot “picture” the innocent being punished for the guilty (a violation of God’s Law). I posit that the sacrifices foreshadow the death of Christ, where a “spotless Lamb of God” (a sinless God-Man) gave himself (as High Priest and offering) to redeem for Himself a Bride and for God the Father a people as THEY (the Godhead) had planned and declared THEY would.

Jesus is that which restores. Wrath belongs to those that persist in rejecting so great a salvation, the ENEMIES of God, not the Children of God. The Vessels of Wrath, not the Vessels of Honor.

 

[brightfame52]

Does God forbid the punishment of the innocent for the guilty?

Why do you think the sacrificial lamb had to be spotless what do you think that stood for?

 

[atpollard]

Why do you think the sacrificial lamb had to be spotless what do you think that stood for?

That was disappointing.

I answered that question already (reread post #71), however you have completely ignored both my original point and my question to you.

You owe me an honest response and I am finished responding to you until I receive one. I do not play “fetch”.

 

[Eleanor]

I am on the fence but leaning away. I accept 90%, but reject the “wrath of the Father transferred to the Son” aspect as that appears to lack scripture support and contradicts scripture on God’s Justice.
Punishing the innocent for the guilty is forbidden by God.

Not where the innocent chooses to do so.
Nothing forbids me to pay my nephew's fine up at the Courthouse.

God repeats that he will “remember sins no more”.
Scripture describes wrath as stored for the day of wrath and delivered on those that reject God.
I accept that Jesus suffered the PENALTY for sin (as scripture affirms).

I accept that Jesus is the SUBSTITUTE the us … the Second Adam (as scripture affirms).
I accept that Jesus ATONED for us, bridging the gap between us and God (as scripture affirms).
I cannot accept that the Father requires us to forgive freely, but God cannot forgive without first receiving his “pound of flesh” from an innocent man (as no scripture affirms).

We don't get a vote in the matter.

You'll get to take it all up with him one day. . .I'm sure you will understand then.

 

[brightfame52]

That was disappointing.

I answered that question already (reread post #71), however you have completely ignored both my original point and my question to you.

You owe me an honest response and I am finished responding to you until I receive one. I do not play “fetch”.

It was lawful for the spotless lamb of God to die for guilty sinful men according to what I see in Scripture.

 

[Arial]

I was specifically asked for my position, so I gave it. I almost didn’t respond to the request because experience has shown that what should be at best a TERTIARY ISSUE (not even rising to the level of a secondary issue) is far too often treated as a PRIMARY (salvific) issue. Our opinions about WHY Jesus did what Jesus did (absent scriptural proof) is hardly a hill we should be willing to die on … or burn heretics on.

Now, if you disagree with me about the TRANSFER OF WRATH … so what? You do not answer to me and I do not answer to you. Each will answer to their own master, who is able to make them stand!

If you feel the uncontrollable need to change my mind, then save the contrary opinions and present the Biblical verses and exegesis to support your case. THAT is what will change my mind., God's Word, rightly divided.

Chip on shoulder? I simply stated my position just as you stated your position. I have no interest in changing your mind. I find minds are very difficult to change once someone has taken a public stand. They would rather argue incessantly in order to be right and never wrong, refusing at all costs a willingness to listen and even less interest in learning. Despite the rule to do both as good faith participants. I simply showed you that from my view, which is the result of rightly dividing the word, God was not extracting his "pound of flesh" on the innocent instead of on the guilty as you portray it. And if he wasn't doing that, then it is not a sound argument for denying PSA. I actually showed you why that is not what he was doing. Fifteen words: God's attribute of just cannot take a back seat to his attribute of being merciful. They have to work together, in harmony, because God is not made up of parts. He is one essence.

 

[atpollard]

Chip on shoulder?

“Once bitten, twice shy.”

I have been accused of heresy and banned from sites for claiming that I cannot locate a verse that supports the transfer of wrath (ever), so I am a bit gun shy and defensive on the topic.

You intended to present “your POV” and I saw “another correction of my bad/wrong POV”.
Sorry.

 

[John Bauer]

I accept that Jesus suffered the PENALTY for sin (as scripture affirms).

Except he didn't sin. Why did he suffer the penalty for something of which he was not guilty?

I accept that Jesus is the SUBSTITUTE the us

How is he the substitute without imputation? How did he stand in our place if our sin and guilt was not imputed to him?

I cannot accept that the Father requires us to forgive freely, but God cannot forgive without first receiving his “pound of flesh” from an innocent man (as no scripture affirms).

Since God forgives us freely, we forgive others freely. We forgive because we are forgiven. And he can forgive us because his justice was satisfied by the cross of Christ (the cross being a synecdoche for the life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ).

 

[John Bauer]

(Let us establish whether I have lied or spoken the truth.)

False dichotomy. You could have neither lied nor spoken the truth—that is, spoken falsehood in error. That makes you mistaken, not a liar.

 

[atpollard]

We don't get a vote in the matter.

You'll get to take it all up with him one day. . .I'm sure you will understand then.

Does God get a vote?

Ezekiel 18!