Penal Substitution

[Carbon]

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.

I think one of the major points in this debate, by those who deny God's wrath being poured out on Christ, is the doctrine of imputation.

In order to deny the wrath of God on the Son, they must deny imputation.

Heb 10:5-7
5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

We know Christ had no inherent sin, but Scripture teaches he had sin imputed unto him.
2 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

And I have heard many of these people say, if God had wrath upon the Son that would be cosmic child abuse.
I say these people do not know what they are talking about.

I cannot see a God who would punish an innocent person, ESPECIALLY NOT HIS SON!

How could the Law justly proceed against Christ? How is it that our deserved punishment could be inflicted upon Jesus if he had no relationship to it?
Now, if the Law could not charge our sin on him, in virtue of his own voluntary undertaking, it could have no ground in justice to inflict our punishment on him.
How else could God's law justly proceed against Jesus?

 

[Deleted member 5]

I think one of the major points in this debate, by those who deny God's wrath being poured out on Christ, is the doctrine of imputation.

In order to deny the wrath of God on the Son, they must deny imputation.

Heb 10:5-7
5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

We know Christ had no inherent sin, but Scripture teaches he had sin imputed unto him.
2 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

And I have heard many of these people say, if God had wrath upon the Son that would be cosmic child abuse.
I say these people do not know what they are talking about.

I cannot see a God who would punish an innocent person, ESPECIALLY NOT HIS SON!

How could the Law justly proceed against Christ? How is it that our deserved punishment could be inflicted upon Jesus if he had no relationship to it?
Now, if the Law could not charge our sin on him, in virtue of his own voluntary undertaking, it could have no ground in justice to inflict our punishment on him.
How else could God's law justly proceed against Jesus?

The misunderstanding is mainly due to the fact they don't truly understand Biblical wrath and what it entails.

From observation many only see God's wrath as eschatological, as in the judgments in Revelation. No, there is much more to it than that.

 

[Ladodgers6]

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

I entered this conversation to inquire about support for YOUR view

First of all thank you for being civil and cordial with me. And I hope you feel the same. My aim is not to belittle or insult people, I do enjoy our discussion because we all can grow in these theological discussions. I can also resonate with you, because I had a close friend who was a Calvinist, but later recanted it, because I believe somebody challenged him on topics, that he wasn't prepared to defend. This is why I always encourage people to do their home work, because there's no novelty in these debates. They have been debated by the greatest minds in Christendom. I encourage you to read everything you can get your hands on, learn both sides of the debate, and know what at stake. I learned this a long time ago, and trust I still don't know everything, far from it. But growing in the knowledge of the Lord is essential to grow in the Christian Faith, and to share it, and defend it.​

... 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 don't want to beat a dead horse here, but we must be like the Bereans, double check everything with Scripture. By Scripture Alone! We must not only read, not studying Scripture. Here's a recommendation, get a book entitles, "Sacred Bond", by Michael Brown & Zach Keele. Also get a book entitled "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott. And third a book titled The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross by Leon Morris. This is last book is a little more challenging because you need to know a little greek. But if one puts in the work, you can absorb it and understand it.​

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 gave you Scripture to help you. What is it that you have a problem understanding? I will share more with of the OT sacrificial system with you. Especially the two goats, one goat is slain and placed inside the sanctuary, and the other hands are laid on and sent far away. (The scape goat).​

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.​

Okay, you want a passage with the specific phrase that's says, the Father has wrath on the Son and is punished for the ungodly, correct? But can I ask you an honest question? What if I came to you and said, I do not believe in the Trinity, because I search everywhere in Scripture, and it appears no where. Is this the approach one should take? I am not trying to be condescending, I just don't understand why you cannot understand this? The teaching of the Trinity is there, no question about it. Would you at least agree that God has wrath against sin? Who sins? BTW, the curse of the Law, is that it always highlights our sins, condemnation. Its threats is always present for we have disobeyed God and have sinned and fallen short! Would agree that sinners who do not repent and believe will be judged by a Holy God and be sent to hell and punished or just die and that's it?

The main problem why propitiation is not understood, is the gravity of our sins, are watered down, or sugar coded. If the Son of God must come to redeem from it, that's how severe it is. God's Holy Character will not allow sin to go unpunished, when Christ takes our place on that Cross and becomes the curse for us, he expiates our sinners, and propitiates God's wrath.

Read these passages:
​

10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.​

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, to be received by faith.​

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.​

No Sir, I am trying to, for the lack of a better word, provoke you to ask the right questions. Look Pollard you can have the win, that's not what I care about, I seek only the truth. You ask me all these questions, which I have answered and provided scripture to help you understand God's wrath, but instead of trying to understand them you still argue that nowhere in scripture does it specifically say, "The Father had wrath on the Son". So I reply saying why did Christ have to go through all that suffering for us, in our place? Saying suffering is not punishment is ridiculous. How is this not just trying to win an argument, Sir? Either one wants the truth or not. Isaiah 53 explicitly says, "It was the will of the Father to crush him". Whose him? Who crushed him? Why did crush him? Are these not questions we should ask?​

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.​

I beg to differ, these comments do make your case. 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous.

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.​

Who was smitten and afflicted by God? Why he pierced for our transgressions? How does his chastisement bring us peace? How are we heal by his wounds? Who borne our griefs and carried our sorrows?

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.​

Yes, we also hold to Christus Victor, but this is not the whole picture, Pollard.

Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

What debt? What legal demands?

Why on earth would I nod in blind agreement??? This tells the whole story!!!! Yeah, I think its best we end this conversation.

Know what you believe and why you believe it.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

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

Can you define Propitiation for everybody here?

 

[Carbon]

Christ became our debtor in law. And he was bound to pay the debt.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. The type and shadow pointing to Christ and the laying on of the hands on the head of the sacrifices, especially on the head of the scapegoat, Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness.

 

[Eleanor]

The misunderstanding is mainly due to the fact they don't truly understand Biblical wrath and what it entails.

From observation many only see God's wrath as eschatological, as in the judgments in Revelation. No, there is much more to it than that.

As in?

 

[Eleanor]

First of all thank you for being civil and cordial with me. And I hope you feel the same. My aim is not to belittle or insult people, I do enjoy our discussion because we all can grow in these theological discussions. I can also resonate with you, because I had a close friend who was a Calvinist, but later recanted it, because I believe somebody challenged him on topics, that he wasn't prepared to defend. This is why I always encourage people to do their home work, because there's no novelty in these debates. They have been debated by the greatest minds in Christendom. I encourage you to read everything you can get your hands on, learn both sides of the debate, and know what at stake. I learned this a long time ago, and trust I still don't know everything, far from it. But growing in the knowledge of the Lord is essential to grow in the Christian Faith, and to share it, and defend it.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but we must be like the Bereans, double check everything with Scripture. By Scripture Alone! We must not only read, not studying Scripture. Here's a recommendation, get a book entitles, "Sacred Bond", by Michael Brown & Zach Keele. Also get a book entitled "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott. And third a book titled The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross by Leon Morris. This is last book is a little more challenging because you need to know a little greek. But if one puts in the work, you can absorb it and understand it.

I gave you Scripture to help you. What is it that you have a problem understanding? I will share more with of the OT sacrificial system with you. Especially the two goats, one goat is slain and placed inside the sanctuary,​

Close. Its blood was sprinkled with the High Priest's finger on the front of the atonement cover (Lev 16:15) of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and its body burned outside the camp (Lev 16:27).

and the other hands are laid on and sent far away. (The scape goat).

Okay, you want a passage with the specific phrase that's says, the Father has wrath on the Son and is punished for the ungodly, correct? But can I ask you an honest question? What if I came to you and said, I do not believe in the Trinity, because I search everywhere in Scripture, and it appears no where. Is this the approach one should take? I am not trying to be condescending, I just don't understand why you cannot understand this? The teaching of the Trinity is there, no question about it. Would you at least agree that God has wrath against sin? Who sins? BTW, the curse of the Law, is that it always highlights our sins, condemnation. Its threats is always present for we have disobeyed God and have sinned and fallen short! Would agree that sinners who do not repent and believe will be judged by a Holy God and be sent to hell and punished or just die and that's it?

The main problem why propitiation is not understood, is the gravity of our sins, are watered down, or sugar coded. If the Son of God must come to redeem from it, that's how severe it is. God's Holy Character will not allow sin to go unpunished, when Christ takes our place on that Cross and becomes the curse for us, he expiates our sinners, and propitiates God's wrath.

Read these passages:
​

10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.​

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, to be received by faith.

No Sir, I am trying to, for the lack of a better word, provoke you to ask the right questions. Look Pollard you can have the win, that's not what I care about, I seek only the truth. You ask me all these questions, which I have answered and provided scripture to help you understand God's wrath, but instead of trying to understand them you still argue that nowhere in scripture does it specifically say, "The Father had wrath on the Son". So I reply saying why did Christ have to go through all that suffering for us, in our place? Saying suffering is not punishment is ridiculous. How is this not just trying to win an argument, Sir? Either one wants the truth or not. Isaiah 53 explicitly says, "It was the will of the Father to crush him". Whose him? Who crushed him? Why did crush him? Are these not questions we should ask?​

I beg to differ, these comments do make your case. 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous.

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.​

Who was smitten and afflicted by God? Why he pierced for our transgressions? How does his chastisement bring us peace? How are we heal by his wounds? Who borne our griefs and carried our sorrows?

Yes, we also hold to Christus Victor, but this is not the whole picture, Pollard.

Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

What debt? What legal demands?

Why on earth would I nod in blind agreement??? This tells the whole story!!!! Yeah, I think its best we end this conversation.

Know what you believe and why you believe it.​

 

[Deleted member 5]

As in?

Define it for me? What is it? What does it entail? What do Scriptures show us in His exercising of wrath?

 

[Eleanor]

Define it for me? What is it? What does it entail? What do Scriptures show us in His exercising of wrath?

Isn't that what you are supposed to do in explaining "there's more to it than that"?

 

[atpollard]

Who was smitten and afflicted by God?

Finally, exactly the sort of thing that I spoke of.

YOU CLAIM (as do many) that Jesus was smitten and afflicted by God … but read Isaiah 53:4 again and see WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS!

Does it say that God smote Him?
Does it say that MEN (we) thought that God had smote Him?

Which does the GOSPEL account of events support?
(I see in the crucifixion, many self-righteous jeerers advocating that God had abandoned this false messiah.)
(I see Christ dying to defeat sin and death and restore us to fellowship with God.)
(Thus my search for a verse that says more than “people thought” God smote Jesus and some form - whatever exact wording - of God actually DID smite Jesus … instead of ‘evil men crucified Him’.)

 

[atpollard]

Can you define Propitiation for everybody here?

I could, but since I advocate for Christus Victor Atonement … it seems YOUR place to define your beliefs rather than mine.

(That and you have generally been dissatisfied with my definitions.)

 

[Deleted member 5]

Isn't that what you are supposed to do in explaining "there's more to it than that"?

I mean I could, but I'm wondering what you can share that you know about it?

 

[Eleanor]

I mean I could, but I'm wondering what you can share that you know about it?

Is that a dodge to explain what you mean?

How about 10 words or less? I won't tell.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Finally, exactly the sort of thing that I spoke of.

YOU CLAIM (as do many) that Jesus was smitten and afflicted by God … but read Isaiah 53:4 again and see WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS!

Does it say that God smote Him?
Does it say that MEN (we) thought that God had smote Him?

Which does the GOSPEL account of events support?
(I see in the crucifixion, many self-righteous jeerers advocating that God had abandoned this false messiah.)
(I see Christ dying to defeat sin and death and restore us to fellowship with God.)
(Thus my search for a verse that says more than “people thought” God smote Jesus and some form - whatever exact wording - of God actually DID smite Jesus … instead of ‘evil men crucified Him’.)

I do not need your validation, nor will I blindly agree with you. Scripture is clear and precise, but now you are saying not the believe what it says?

Isaiah 53 is clear Pollard, you can try to twist or distort it, but the truth of matter is says,

4Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
​

Are you really trying to say, that it doesn't say this? Who was smitten by God? You, me?​

 

[Deleted member 5]

Is that a dodge to explain what you mean?

Yes.

How about 10 words or less? I won't tell.

I think it is more profitable if you bring forward your ideas on wrath, what it looks like, entails &c. After that, the engagement might prove profitable.

I say this because when a person has studied this (or other things) out a bit, and most people haven't and/or are assuming what it means, any input is simply going to be rejected. It goes nowhere.

Wrath is one of those which falls under this category which is why @atpollard is doing what he is doing. He's assuming meaning, he's assuming it to be merely eschatalogical. Anything I offer will only be immediately rejected. That becomes a huge waste of time and energy. It's almost like "I dare you to tell me what you believe about it because I am ready to bat it down!"

No offense intended, but this has been my observation on many forums over this.

 

[atpollard]

I do not need your validation, nor will I blindly agree with you. Scripture is clear and precise, but now you are saying not the believe what it says?

Isaiah 53 is clear Pollard, you can try to twist or distort it, but the truth of matter is says,

4Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
​

Are you really trying to say, that it doesn't say this? Who was smitten by God? You, me?​

Wow …

4Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
​

WHO ESTEEMED HIM?​

(It says “we thought” not “God did”.)
try an easier to understand translation:

Isaiah 53:4 [NLT]
4 Yet it was our weaknesses he carried;
it was our sorrows that weighed him down.
And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God,
a punishment for his own sins!

Isaiah 53:4 [NIV]
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:4 [CSB]
4 Yet he himself bore our sicknesses,
and he carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:4 [NASB20]
4 However, [it was] our sicknesses [that] He Himself bore,
And our pains [that] He carried;
Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted,
Struck down by God, and humiliated.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Close. Its blood was sprinkled with the High Priest's finger on the front of the atonement cover (Lev 16:15) of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and its body burned outside the camp (Lev 16:27).

Hebrews 9:6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

This is the inner sanctuary, where only the High Priest can enter the Holy Places with blood.

Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.​

 

[Deleted member 5]

Wow …

4Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
​

WHO ESTEEMED HIM?​

(It says “we thought” not “God did”.)
try an easier to understand translation:

Isaiah 53:4 [NLT]
4 Yet it was our weaknesses he carried;
it was our sorrows that weighed him down.
And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God,
a punishment for his own sins!

Isaiah 53:4 [NIV]
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:4 [CSB]
4 Yet he himself bore our sicknesses,
and he carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:4 [NASB20]
4 However, [it was] our sicknesses [that] He Himself bore,
And our pains [that] He carried;
Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted,
Struck down by God, and humiliated.​

None of your bolding and underlining proves your case.

Implementing the NLT too? That's desperate.

You simply do not understand God's wrath, what it entails, nor the means in which it is implemented.

Your argument is akin to the JW's argument that when the Jews told Jesus He made Himself out to be God it doesn't mean nor prove His deity, it was merely an "assumption" as in your underlined assumptions on the texts above.

 

[atpollard]

None of your bolding and underlining proves your case.

… so be it (it DOESN’T say we thought, considered, regarded or assumed it). My bad.

 

[Eleanor]

None of your bolding and underlining proves your case.

Implementing the NLT too? That's desperate.

You simply do not understand God's wrath, what it entails, nor the means in which it is implemented.

Would you be so kind as to briefly explain it?

Your argument is akin to the JW's argument that when the Jews told Jesus He made Himself out to be God it doesn't mean nor prove His deity, it was merely an "assumption" as in your underlined assumptions on the texts above.