Penal Substitution

[Ladodgers6]

You missed the point.

Where do we bury all of the sinless people?​

Well Pollard Isaiah 53 states that Christ will be buried with the wicked.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I don't want to be accused of ignoring your question:

Paul brought it up, I just quoted Paul.
I PASS on your offer to pursue "the curse of the Law" ... I just wanted information on where Scripture supports the WRATH of the Father against the Son ... and was rewarded with NONE. Just invitations to play "fetch" with bible verses and tangential topics.

LoL...so you are not ignoring my question? I'll now ask you a question, show in Scripture where I can find the word "Trinity"?

 

[atpollard]

Curious, are you saying you don’t agree Christ endured the Father’s wrath in our place? Or you do?
I’m not understanding what you’re saying.

Let me answer this way ...

In the OT, when a PRIEST killed the Passover Lamb as an offering so that DEATH would pass over Israel, what was his attitude towards the Lamb?

• Did the Priest HATE the lamb?
• Did the Priest TORTURE the lamb?
• Was the goal to inflict pain and suffering on the lamb because the sin of the people was so repugnant that it demanded PENAL SUBSTITUTION of WRATH upon the lamb commensurate with the sin of the people?

Or was the important thing, the lamb had to die so that its blood could save the people?

Does that tell us anything about GOD THE FATHER, and WRATH and GOD THE SON (the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world)?

If you tell me that GOD THE FATHER hated GOD THE SON ... I want a scripture verse.
I say the LAMB was SLAIN (OT and NT) ... Christus Victor: the element of the atoning work of Christ that emphasizes the triumph of Christ over the evil powers of the world, through which he rescues his people and establishes a new relationship between God and the world.

 

[atpollard]

Well Pollard Isaiah 53 states that Christ will be buried with the wicked.

You did not answer the question that I asked:

Where do we bury all of the sinless people?​

 

[Carbon]

Let me answer this way ...

In the OT, when a PRIEST killed the Passover Lamb as an offering so that DEATH would pass over Israel, what was his attitude towards the Lamb?

• Did the Priest HATE the lamb?
• Did the Priest TORTURE the lamb?
• Was the goal to inflict pain and suffering on the lamb because the sin of the people was so repugnant that it demanded PENAL SUBSTITUTION of WRATH upon the lamb commensurate with the sin of the people?

Or was the important thing, the lamb had to die so that its blood could save the people?

Does that tell us anything about GOD THE FATHER, and WRATH and GOD THE SON (the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world)?

If you tell me that GOD THE FATHER hated GOD THE SON ... I want a scripture verse.
I say the LAMB was SLAIN (OT and NT) ... Christus Victor: the element of the atoning work of Christ that emphasizes the triumph of Christ over the evil powers of the world, through which he rescues his people and establishes a new relationship between God and the world.

It’s just a simple question. Yes? No?
I have no problem looking at your reasoning. But please answer my simple question first, thanks

 

[atpollard]

It’s just a simple question. Yes? No?
I have no problem looking at your reasoning. But please answer my simple question first, thanks

I can't provide a simple answer because how one defines WRATH changes it from a YES to a NO.
Define WRATH (as in"Christ endured the Father’s wrath in our place") ... what EXACTLY do you mean?

Then I can quickly give a "Yes or No".

 

[Ladodgers6]

Let me answer this way ...

In the OT, when a PRIEST killed the Passover Lamb as an offering so that DEATH would pass over Israel, what was his attitude towards the Lamb?

• Did the Priest HATE the lamb?
• Did the Priest TORTURE the lamb?
• Was the goal to inflict pain and suffering on the lamb because the sin of the people was so repugnant that it demanded PENAL SUBSTITUTION of WRATH upon the lamb commensurate with the sin of the people?

Or was the important thing, the lamb had to die so that its blood could save the people?

Does that tell us anything about GOD THE FATHER, and WRATH and GOD THE SON (the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world)?

If you tell me that GOD THE FATHER hated GOD THE SON ... I want a scripture verse.
I say the LAMB was SLAIN (OT and NT) ... Christus Victor: the element of the atoning work of Christ that emphasizes the triumph of Christ over the evil powers of the world, through which he rescues his people and establishes a new relationship between God and the world.

Pollard, by the blood of the Passover Lamb, it propitiated God's wrath that came through Egypt, killing the firstborn sons of all who did not have blood sprinkled on their door posts. Doesn't this highlight Paul's message in Romans 1-3?

What wrath is Paul talking about here?

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.

Why is God wrathful against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men?

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood

These words are precise and lucid, on account of our sins we have fallen short of the Glory of God. This is the predicative we are in, under God's wrath. If God doesn't punish sin, then he is not Holy or have any Justice, it destroys the very essence of God's Holy Character to allow sin to go unpunished. You keep dancing around these verses, but will you address them?

It is God himself whom put forward Christ as a Propitiation by his blood. Was it God who instructed on how the OT sacrifices were to be carried out? Or man by his own volition offers to God an offerings like Cain?

Just curious though, what do you think "Propitiation" means?

I just remembered that you disagree that one person can be found guilty for the sins of others. Well then you have a couple of major issues here. In your paradigm then how can Christ bear the sins? He didn't commit them, but he was crucified for them, doesn't this contradict your view? Second, Peter says the contrary: 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous​

 

[Carbon]

I can't provide a simple answer because how one defines WRATH changes it from a YES to a NO.
Define WRATH (as in"Christ endured the Father’s wrath in our place") ... what EXACTLY do you mean?

Then I can quickly give a "Yes or No".

Well as you know, at judgement all those who are not saved will face judgement and wrath. Except those who are saved by Christ as he endured the the wrath they would have received, in our place.

You agree? Disagree?

 

[Ladodgers6]

You did not answer the question that I asked:

Where do we bury all of the sinless people?​

You did not answer my question. Where in Scripture is the exact word "Trinity"? By your reason then should we discard it? See, people need to study their Bible not just read them. As I once did, but understanding Covenant Theology/Biblical Theology/Systematic Theology, it became clear, what God accomplished in Christ for his people.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

You did not answer the question that I asked:

Where do we bury all of the sinless people?​

A couple of questions: Do you deny that Christ was put forward as a propitiation?

And do you deny the Imputation of Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness?

 

[Carbon]

A couple of questions: Do you deny that Christ was put forward as a propitiation?

And do you deny the Imputation of Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness?

Important questions!

 

[Deleted member 5]

I can't provide a simple answer because how one defines WRATH changes it from a YES to a NO.
Define WRATH (as in"Christ endured the Father’s wrath in our place") ... what EXACTLY do you mean?

Then I can quickly give a "Yes or No".

I've been waiting for you to define wrath, biblically speaking, not from Merriam-Webster. You're a bit confused in thinking it only takes place later.

Nope. Not even close.

 

[Eleanor]

You did not answer the question that I asked:

Where do we bury all of the sinless people?​

With sinners.

 

[atpollard]

I just remembered that you disagree that one person can be found guilty for the sins of others.

Respectfully, I quoted scripture but I didn't write it.

I entered this conversation to inquire about support for YOUR view ... because it was what I was taught from the pulpit until I was challenged by another Christian to SHOW WHERE SCRIPTURE SAYS what I was taught. I could not. I did an exhaustive study on the WRATH of God and the ANGER of God and I cannot find a verse that says that the FATHER punished the SON.
[YES, it was the God's Plan and YES, the Son suffered for our sins ... but that fits REDEMPTION as well as PUNISHMENT.]

I WANTED for y'all to have found the verse that eluded me. Instead what I found was ... to be blunt ... dishonest debate tactics to win the argument. Which has only one problem ... I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong, I am looking for SCRIPTURE that says you are right.

Thus sending me chasing after phrases in the OT or demanding that I define something to your satisfaction or accusing me of beliefs or claims that I have not made is pointless. The argument was always yours to win or lose.

I believe in the CHRISTUS VICTOR theory of Atonement.​

(Good luck disproving that from Scripture.)
You believe in the PENAL SUBSTITUTION theory of Atonement and have not really either defined or proven WRATH ... y'all just accuse me of misunderstanding your undefined term and demand that I explain things to you.

Your's appears a position of insecurity that attacks those that ask questions rather than nod in blind agreement, so I leave you to it. There is literally NOTHING for me in this topic.

 

[Eleanor]

Respectfully, I quoted scripture but I didn't write it.

I entered this conversation to inquire about support for YOUR view ... because it was what I was taught from the pulpit until I was challenged by another Christian to SHOW WHERE SCRIPTURE SAYS what I was taught. I could not. I did an exhaustive study on the WRATH of God and the ANGER of God and I cannot find a verse that says that the FATHER punished the SON.
[YES, it was the God's Plan and YES, the Son suffered for our sins ... but that fits REDEMPTION as well as PUNISHMENT.]

I WANTED for y'all to have found the verse that eluded me. Instead what I found was ... to be blunt ... dishonest debate tactics to win the argument. Which has only one problem ... I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong, I am looking for SCRIPTURE that says you are right.

Thus sending me chasing after phrases in the OT or demanding that I define something to your satisfaction or accusing me of beliefs or claims that I have not made is pointless. The argument was always yours to win or lose.

I believe in the CHRISTUS VICTOR theory of Atonement.​

(Good luck disproving that from Scripture.)
You believe in the PENAL SUBSTITUTION theory of Atonement and have not really either defined or proven WRATH

Penal (penalty) Substitutionery Atonement does not require wrath, nor prohibit wrath, it requires only penalty; i,e., death.
Christ's death was the PSA for our death.
Christ's death was also Christus Victor.
Christ's death was all of the theories of atonement in agreement with Scripture.

... y'all just accuse me of misunderstanding your undefined term and demand that I explain things to you.

Your's appears a position of insecurity that attacks those that ask questions rather than nod in blind agreement, so I leave you to it. There is literally NOTHING for me in this topic.

 

[atpollard]

With sinners.

Since everyone but him is willing to answer the question ... "Where do we bury all of the sinless people?"

1. There are no sinless people [Romans 3:10-11]
2. Therefore, wherever Jesus was buried would have been with "sinners".
3. That was the point I made (that was missed) way back in post 'whatever'.

 

[atpollard]

Penal (penalty) Substitutionery Atonement does not require wrath, only penalty; i,e., death.
Christ's death was the penal substitution for our death.

Read the OP and tell me if they seem somehow linked.

This exceeding trouble and agony did not arise only from the sympathy of the soul with the body, nor from the mere horror of impending death; it was something else that afflicted the soul of Christ, namely his bearing the sins, not of one, but of all the elect; he had beheld the awful tribunal of God, before which he was presently to appear, in order to pay what he took not away; he saw the Judge himself, armed with all the terrors of his incomprehensible vengeance, the law brandishing all the thunders of its curses, the devil, and all the powers of darkness, with all the gates of hell just ready to pour in upon his soul; in a word, he saw justice itself, in all its inexorable rigour, to which he was now to make full satisfaction; he saw the face of his dearest Father, without darting a single ray of favor upon him, but rather burning with hot jealousy in all the terrors of his wrath against the sins of mankind, which he had undertaken to atone for.
And whithersoever he turned, not the least glimpse of relief appeared for him, either in heaven or on earth, till with resolution and constancy he had acquitted himself in the combat.
These, These are the things, which, not without reason, struck Christ with terror and amazement, and forced from him his groans, his signs, and his tears.
And if all this was not for the expiation and satisfaction for our sins, what reason can be assigned, why the other sufferings of Christ, within the three hours of darkness, should be accounted so?

 

[Eleanor]

Read the OP and tell me if they seem somehow linked.

I am not denying they are linked.

I am saying that with or without wrath does not change that it is PSA.

And PSA is the point.

 

[atpollard]

I am not denying they are linked.

I am saying that with or without wrath does not change that it is PSA.

And PSA is the point.

Classic question ... to whom was the debt owed? Who paid what to whom?
Why PENAL and not RANSOM?

It is not the FACTS that need challenging, scripture clearly establishes them. It is the MOTIVATION that humans ascribe to WHY that need to be questioned and checked for Biblical accuracy.

 

[Eleanor]

Classic question ... to whom was the debt owed? Who paid what to whom?
Why PENAL and not RANSOM?

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

The sacrificial system was penal (Lev 5:6, 7, 15, 6L6, 26:41, 43) and substitutionary (the animals died in the sinners' place).
Jesus died to ransom from eternal death all those who believe in him.
He also died to propitiate God's wrath (Ro 5:9).
He also died that we might die to sin (Ro 6:3-4).

It is not the FACTS that need challenging, scripture clearly establishes them. It is the MOTIVATION that humans ascribe to WHY that need to be questioned and checked for Biblical accuracy.

Not to sure why the motivation to Biblical accuracy needs to be checked.