Search results

This is @David Taylor 's issue. He cannot read those verses without carting into them his indoctrination. It was difficult for me as well. God convicted me after I preached a sermon advocating Penal Substitution Theory that I had preached my theory instead of Scripture. This drove me to...

Your argument was that "chasten" means "punishment" because the things Christ suffered was divine punishment. That is just assumption. Nothing to engage except to say provide evidence instead of shifting the assumptions to a different place.

@David Taylor 's "explanation" is the word means "punished" because he assumes the contest is speaking of God punishing Christ instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon His Son. This is eisegesis and the reason he cannot justify his view.

Chastening (Scripture says by God's predetermined plan at the hands of wicked men). Most scholars see this "being made perfect" as applying to Christ's purpose in redemption, not that He was less than perfect.

Exactly. God's wrath does not abide on the righteous (those He chastens).

I explained the reason for my conclusion. I believe "chasen" refers to "learning obedience" and "being made perfect" from the things Christ suffered. Are you able to say why you interpret the verse to mean divine punishment and that in our stead?

Chasen can mean punish. It can mean to correct by punishment or suffering, to discipline, to humble, to purify, to prune of excess, to "cause to be more humble", and to refine. The Hebrew word refers to punishment 2 out of the 50 times it is used (excluding this verse). Why do you believe...

You are suggesting Christ experienced the "second death" (Revelation 21:8 - But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second...

Basically I do not believe our individual sins were placed on Christ. I believe the work of redemption is from the Incarnation to the Resurrection and what was laid on Christ (our sins) is the sin of mankind as a whole. To borrow from Justin Martyr, the whole "human family".

That is an asinine defence. "Because of the context and the rest of Scripture" is why I reject your theory. It serms obvious that you cannot explain how you get from Scripture to your theory in this verse. I have told you why I believe the word should be translated "chastened" and provided...

In your mind, perhaps. But in the actual Bible it says that the chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him. It does not say "punished" much less "punished by God instead of God punishing us). While punished may be a possible word ( 4% of the times used it refers to punishment, although not...

So you assume this is eternal life vs eternal death (rather than the historic position that this is physical death vs a resurrected life). What makes you come to this conclusion? Why do you think the Cross was God's wrath, and what do you do with the passages that state God will not condemn the...

Why do you believe Isaiah 53 speaks of God punishing Christ instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon Christ?

Again, can you explain how you get from the text of Scripture to your conclusions? Why do you think the "cup" Christ drank and shared with His disciples was God's wrath? Why did He tell the Disciples they would also drink of that cup if He did it I stead of them?

This is why I PM'd @David Taylor and @Steve Owen. All we get is passages and their unsubstantiated opinions. We all affirm the same Scripture. We know their conclusions. What we need to know to have a discussion is how they get from Scripture to their conclusions. Without knowing how they...

No, you have not. Others have noticed the same thing. You give us a verse or a chapter and then your opinion of what it means. We all know the passages and your conclusions. What we are interested in is how you arrive at your theories. "It is what it is" type of explanation just does not...

@CharismaticLady has actually engaged and explained her view. You have just provided verses and gave your unsupported opinion. You seem to be the lazy one.

But none of the verses you provide teach that sin is transferable. We all agree God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, laid upon Him our iniquities (literally, our infirmity). But you are talking as if God could justly transfer our sins from us to Christ and punish Christ for our sins...

Why do you think that divine justice is retributive justice? Why do you present redemption as God's righteousness manifested through the law? Why center redemption on justice? Why can God not forgive based on repentance (as stated in Scripture)?

Why do you believe sin can be transfered from one person to another? How is God just to punish a righteous person for the sins of guilty people?