1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by Steve Owen, Nov 15, 2019.

  1. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Active Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    229
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    This subject came up on the Calvinism thread for some reason although it is not an exclusively Calvinistic doctrine and long predates Calvin himself. I feel the subject deserves more discussion here and therefore have started this thread. I am going to take some time to lay out the Biblical evidence for the doctrine in some depth, and then invite comments.

    First, a definition: ‘The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin’ (Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach. IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6).

    Penal Substitution is rooted in the character of God as He revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7. “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.” Immediately the question arises, how can God be merciful and gracious, how can He forgive iniquity, transgression and sin without clearing the guilty? How can He clear the guilty if He abounds with truth—if He is a ‘just Judge’ (Psalm 7:11)? How can it be said that, ‘Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed’ unless God can simultaneously punish sin and forgive sinners? The answer is that ‘God……devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him’ (2 Samuel 14:14). Those means are Penal Substitution. “Learn ye, my friends, to look upon God as being as severe in His justice as if He were not loving, and yet as loving as if He were not severe. His love does not diminish His justice nor does His justice, in the least degree, make warfare upon His love. The two are sweetly linked together in the atonement of Christ” (C.H. Spurgeon).

    Right at the start of the Bible (Genesis 2:16-17) we have a direct command to Adam, the ‘first man’ (1 Corinthians 15:47): ‘And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree in the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”’ The command is accompanied by a penal sanction-- death. Yet we know that in the Bible death is not restricted to simply the end of existence. ‘….It is appointed to men to die once, but after this the judgement’ (Hebrews 9:27).

    In Genesis 1:28, we see that God blessed His creation; marriage, child-bearing and work are specifically mentioned in that verse as part of this blessing. But at the Fall in Genesis 3, the blessings are turned to curses. Childbirth is marked by pain, the marriage bond is marred, and work becomes hardship and struggle, with death as the final inevitable result (Genesis 3:16-19). These are penal sanctions by God; they are His righteous response to sin. Sinful men and women are not going to live in a perfect environment; every aspect of it has been marred by sin. ‘For the whole creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope’ (Romans 8:20).

    So both our lives and our deaths are subject to the curse because of sin. We learn from Romans 5 that Adam was our federal head—what he did, we have done in him. Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sinned…..’ (v.12). God’s curse extends to mankind because we are every one of us sinners (eg. 2 Chronicles 6:36). We read in Psalm 7:11 that ‘God is a just Judge [therefore whomever God punishes for sin must be guilty of sin], and God is angry with sinners every day,’ and in Proverbs 17:15 we learn that ‘he who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to God.’

    So we come to the necessity of Atonement. We must be very careful in saying that God cannot do something, but the Scriptures tell us that God ‘cannot deny Himself’ (2 Timothy 2:13). In the light of Proverbs 17:15, God surely cannot become an abomination to Himself by justifying guilty sinners without a penalty for sin! Be it said that God is under no obligation to show mercy to sinful humans; the angels who sinned had no Redeemer but were ‘cast down to hell and delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgement’ (2 Peter 2:4). But if God, ‘according to the good pleasure of His will’ (Ephesians 1:5), has decreed mercy and salvation for certain sinful men and women, it surely cannot be at the expense of His justice. Someone must pay the price and satisfy God’s justice and His righteous anger against sin.

    In the Scriptures we have the concept of the mediator, one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly provides. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

    In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we learn that God does not impute trespasses against His people; in Christ; He has reconciled the world [believing Jew and Gentile alike] to Himself. How has He done this? Through the Mediator Jesus Christ. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….’ (v.21). The Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and made satisfaction to God for them. Therefore the message of reconciliation can be preached to all.

    [continued]
     
  2. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Active Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    229
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    A similar concept is that of a surety. This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’ More on that verse presently.

    In the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were made to God for the sins of the people. We read over and over again that creatures to be offered had to be without blemish (Leviticus 1:3 etc., etc.). ‘It must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it’ (Leviticus 22:21). Given that He is the fulfilment of the O.T. sacrifices (Hebrews 9:11-15 etc.), the physical perfections of the sacrificed animals speak of the moral and spiritual perfections of Christ. 1 Peter 1:18-19 speaks of ‘….the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.’ So it was necessary for the Lord Jesus to live the life that Adam failed to live-- the life of perfect obedience to the Father’s will (Psalm 40:8). And this ‘Active Obedience’ is not a notional thing; it had to be lived out in the most practical way. Hence, ‘immediately’ after His baptism, ‘the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness’ (Mark 1:12-13) for an encounter with Satan. He must succeed where Adam fell.

    God’s law makes two inexorable demands: ‘Do this and live’ (Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12), and ‘The soul that sins shall die’ (Ezekiel 18:4). The first demand our Lord has met in His perfect obedience. He was made ‘under the law’ (Galatians 4:4) and fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17). His obedience has been placed to the credit of His people (Romans 5:19) and they are now made ‘the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

    For the second demand, we need to look again at Hebrews 7:22: ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’ Christ is specifically designated in Scripture as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) and we are told that the first Adam was a ‘type [or ‘figure’] of Him who was to come’ (Romans 5:14). ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). All those in Adam perish in their sins; all those in Christ are united to Him in His perfect righteousness.

    Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26).

    So we come to the concept of the cup of God’s wrath. In Gethsemane, our Lord prayed, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39). What was this cup which the Lord Jesus dreaded so much to drink? It is the cup of God’s wrath. ‘For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red. It is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drink’ (Psalm 75:8; c.f. Isaiah 51:17, 22; Jeremiah 13:13; 25:15; Ezekiel 23:32-34; Revelation 14:9-10 etc.). It represents God’s righteous judgement against a wicked world. This cup the Lord Jesus must drink down to the very dregs. All the wrath and punishment due to those whom He came to save was poured out on Him. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree….’ (1 Peter 2:24). ‘It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief’ (Isaiah 53:10). Why would it please the Father to bruise or crush His beloved (Luke 3:22 etc. ) Son? Because by His suffering, the Son magnified God’s law and made it honourable. Sin was punished in full, so that God ‘might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).

    We learn in the Scriptures two things that the Lord Jesus became on our behalf. He became sin ‘for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), and He became a curse ‘for us’ (Galatians 3:13). First, He became sin. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.’ So God the Father made the sinless Christ to be sin on our behalf. What does this mean? Well, it does not mean that Christ was made a sinner; He was never that! It means that all the sins of God’s elect were imputed to Christ-- that is, laid to His account (c.f. Isaiah 53:6), and He has paid the penalty for them (Isaiah 53:5). At the same time, His perfect righteousness and obedience to His Father’s will are credited to us who believe. This is what Luther termed the ‘Great Exchange.’ The sinless One made sin, and sinners made righteous through the cross.


    It has been suggested that Christ was not made ‘sin’ in 2 Cor. 5:21, but a ‘sin offering.’ There are three reasons why this suggestion should be rejected:

    Firstly, hamartia, the Greek word translated ‘sin’ never means ‘sin offering’ in the New Testament. In Hebrews 10:18, 'sin offering' or 'offering for sin' is a translation of prosphora hamartias.

    Secondly, hamartia occurs twice in the verse, and it would be strange if it had two meanings in one sentence; but to say, “God made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us” makes no sense.

    Thirdly, in John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of type of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? Well where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a type of Christ? He is a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

    Next, we come to Galatians 3:10-13. God’s law pronounces a curse on law-breakers: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (v.10; c.f. Deuteronomy 27:26; James 2:10). We ourselves are cursed, for none of us have continued in God’s holy law. But, ‘Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law….’ How has He done that? ‘…..having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”’ (v.13; Deuteronomy 21:23). In God’s law it is written, so, as Luther says, ‘Christ hung on a tree; therefore Christ was accursed of God’ (Luther: Commentary on Galatians). This is not quite accurate. rather, Christ on the cross suffered God's curse upon sin and sinners and expiated it .
    [continued]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2019
  3. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Active Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    229
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    So what does it mean to be ‘accursed of God’? Let Paul answer first: ‘These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thessalonians 1:10). And then the Lord Jesus: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell” (Luke 12:4-5; c.f. Matthew 25:41). So what does hell feel like? Well, we may think of darkness, pain and, according to Paul, separation from the presence of God, save perhaps for His abiding wrath. We may add, perhaps, the mocking and abuse of others (c.f. Isaiah 14:10-11). All these things came upon the Christ. Of the pain it is hardly necessary to speak, save to note that it could not be diminished in any degree. Our Lord was offered wine mixed with myrrh, but He would not take it (Mark 15:23); it was an analgesic, but He must suffer the full agony of sin and the wrath of the Father against sin.

    Of the darkness, we note that, ‘When the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour’ (Mark 15:33). By this time I suppose that the two thieves had fallen silent; the crowd had dispersed; even the Pharisees had got bored with mocking and gone home, and John had taken our Lord’s mother into his own house (John 19:27). The Lord Jesus hung alone—so utterly alone that about the ninth hour He cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Hitherto, He had enjoyed the closest imaginable relationship with the Father (Mark 1:11; 9:7; John 8:29; 16:32). Even in Gethsemane, when He was almost overcome with the prospect of the horror that was approaching Him, the Father sent an angel to strengthen Him (Luke 22:43). But now, on the cross, His greatest extremity He must endure alone. He was ‘made sin’ and the Father, whose eyes are too pure to look upon sin, turned away from Him. I know that some people find this hard to accept, but it must be true because the Holy Spirit has preserved His words for us. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning? O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent” (Psalm 22:1-2). Although it was 3 o’clock in the afternoon, it was the ‘night season’ for darkness had fallen upon the land, as if to hide the shame of the God-man made sin. For those hours, as a Man, He was quite literally God-forsaken.

    But at the end of the ninth hour, the sun came out again. God’s outraged justice had been satisfied; the Old Testament types and prophecies had been fulfilled; propitiation had been made, save for the actual act of dismissing His spirit which followed almost at once. God could now be ‘just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus’ (Rom. 3:26). The way to heaven was now wide open, the veil was torn asunder, the one acceptable sacrifice for sin had been made.

    To finish, I want to answer two potential objections. Firstly, we must not suppose that God was wrathful towards Christ Himself. No, Christ never ceased to be the Father’s beloved Son. Nor did the Father punish the Son, but He punished sin as it was imputed to Christ. What happened is that Christ was made sin and God’s wrath and curse against sin was made to fall upon Him; He was the sin-bearer. God does not become an abomination to Himself by punishing the innocent; rather, He punishes the guilty for their sin but Christ willingly takes that sin upon Himself.

    Secondly, how could Christ’s suffering, which lasted just a few hours, pay an infinite price? How could an infinite punishment be borne in a finite time? The answer is that an ordinary person, even if their sacrifice were acceptable to God, which is isn’t, would indeed need to suffer for an infinite period. But the Lord Jesus Christ was not an ordinary person. Just as sin against God is especially heinous because of His infinite worth and goodness, so Christ’s propitiation is of infinite value in the eyes of the Father because of His own infinite worth. Therefore the sufferings of Christ were infinite in value because He is infinitely worthy. Scripture attests that ‘by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified’ (Hebrews 10:14). Finally, the Father’s satisfaction with Christ’s atonement is proved by the fact that He raised Him from the dead.

    In the interests of time and space I have scarcely looked at the Levitical sacrifices and how they prefigure the Penal Substituition of Christ, but I am quite happy to discuss that if required.
     
  4. Ernest T. Bass

    Ernest T. Bass Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    329
    The idea of penal substitution has no Biblical basis but comes from Calvinism. Penal substitution being the basis for the "L" "I" and "P" of TULIP. From what I have read about penal substitution, it is an attempt to find a way to irresistibly save (I in TULIP) only certain men (L in TULIP) while man sits idle doing nothing. And there is nothing man can do to lose that salvation (P in TULIP). It denies man has a role (obedience to God's will) in obtaining salvation and that all men will be held accountable for the deeds he does.

    Problems With the Substitution Theory – West Palm Beach church of Christ
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
  5. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Active Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    229
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Almost nothing in your post is correct. The truth of P.S. long predates Calvin (think Bible, Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr); John Wesley was an Arminian and taught it; his brother Charles wrote at least one hymn about it.
    C.H. Spurgeon taught P.S. and George Whitfield preached it. They were two of the most active evangelists in church history.
    P.S. does absolutely not deny the necessity of obedience to God's will or that man will be held accountable for the deeds he does if he does not repent.

    It is always dangerous on this board to say you are a Calvinist, since people immediately conclude that you would have burned Servetus. However, I am happy to join Bunyan, Spurgeon, William Carey and Adoniram Judson in saying that I am firmly calvinistic in my theology; that is, I believe in effective atonement. But that's not what this thread's about. The thread on Calvinism is still open, so run along and air your ignorance over there.
     
    David Taylor and Preacher4Truth like this.
  6. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Active Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    229
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Hymn by Charles Wesley:

    1. 'Tis finished! the Messiah dies,
    cut off for sins, but not his own.
    Accomplished is the sacrifice,
    the great redeeming work is done.
    'Tis finished, all the debt is paid;
    Justice divine is satisfied,
    The grand and full atonement made;
    Christ for a guilty world has died.

    2. The veil is rent; in Christ alone
    The living way to heaven is seen;
    The middle wall is broken down,
    And all mankind may enter in.
    The types and figures are fulfilled;
    Exacted is the legal pain;
    The precious promises are sealed;
    The spotless Lamb of God is slain.

    3. The reign of sin and death is o'er,
    And all may live from sin set free;
    Satan hath lost his mortal power;
    'Tis swallowed up in victory.
    saved from the legal curse I am,
    My Saviour hangs on yonder tree;
    See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
    'Tis finished! He expires for me.

    4. Accepted in the Well-beloved,
    And clothed in righteousness divine,
    I see the bar to heaven removed,
    And all Thy merits, Lord, are mine.
    Death hell and sin are now subdued;
    All grace is now to sinners given;
    And lo, I plead the atoning blood
    And in Thy right I claim Thy heaven.
     
  7. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    5,610
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    That is COMPLETE FALSE. I am not a Calvinist but every Biblicist will agree that Penal Substitution is a fundamental Bible doctrine. The only difference is that Calvinists believe it was limited to the so-called *elect* whereas the Bible clearly reveals that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.
     
  8. Ernest T. Bass

    Ernest T. Bass Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    329
    How can one believe in penal substitution yet not go along with the LIP in TULIP?



    IF all of man's sins, all the guilt of sin, all the penalty of man's sin were all UNCONDITIONAL imputed/transferred to Christ and in turn Christ's righteousness is UNCONDITIONALLY imputed to the sinner then that creates Universalism. Even the Reformers saw that, therefore they created the idea of limited atonement to get around that problem. If you reject Calvinism's limited atonement then you must be accepting Universalism.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
  9. Ernest T. Bass

    Ernest T. Bass Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    329
    I don't not care who taught it, it is not found in the Bible that all of men's sin, the guilt of sin the penalty of sin was transferred to Christ. Christ is a ransom for man's sin, a propitiation for man's sin but was not a receptacle for man's sins. God determined that Christ would be the perfect sacrifice for man's sins and the blood of Christ is what would remove man's sins and not man's sin transferred to Christ.

    If the penalty of man's sin was all transferred to Christ, then man would have no penalty to be accountable to or suffer for. Then man would never be held accountable for his sins and still be saved. But the Bible does not teach OSAS, (the P of TULIP) but man will be held accountable for his deeds.

    " The P in TULIP stands for Perseverance of the saints. They (Calvin & Luther) taught that the saved could not fall away (known as “once saved always saved”) and that the saved do not have to fear sinning because the Holy Spirit selected them as the “saved” and sin can no longer be applied to them with its consequences because Christ already PAID IT ALL. To them, God cannot hold us accountable for sin, in fact, sin is not even possible because Christ has already taken ALL of its consequences upon Himself. If all sin was imputed to Christ, what is leftover? Would God be just if He held man accountable for something which Christ already “paid in full”? NO!

    Some might ask: “Wouldn’t that mean that ALL of mankind is saved because all sin was done away (Universal Salvation)?” That is where the ‘L’ in TULIP comes from. Limited Atonement! Just as it sounds, limited atonement means that atonement did not apply to all men, it was selective in its reach. Christ’s blood did not apply to all men, it only applied to those who were predetermined to be saved, “the elect“.



    Some might ask: “Wouldn’t that mean that ALL of mankind is saved because all sin was done away (Universal Salvation)?” That is where the ‘L’ in TULIP comes from. Limited Atonement! Just as it sounds, limited atonement means that atonement did not apply to all men, it was selective in its reach. Christ’s blood did not apply to all men, it only applied to those who were predetermined to be saved, “the elect“
    ." Ben Taylor "Penal Substitution"
     
  10. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Active Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    229
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Isaiah 53:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24.
    And I don't care who wrote that; it's junk. If someone doesn't hate sin and fear sinning, he's most certainly not saved.
     
    Preacher4Truth likes this.
  11. Ernest T. Bass

    Ernest T. Bass Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    329
    But you have not refuted the 'junk'. it still stands. Nor do the verses you cite prove penal substitution either. For example, Isa 53:6:

    Looking at the broader context:


    Isaiah 53:5 "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."
    Isaiah 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

    Verse 5 - Our transgressions caused Christ to suffer, be wounded, NOT our transgressions were transferred to Christ.
    Verse 5 - Our iniquities caused Christ to suffer, be bruised, NOT our iniquities transferred to Christ.

    Same idea in verse 6 - Our iniquities laid upon Him means our iniquities caused Christ to suffer, NOT our iniquities transferred to Christ. How do I know this? Because the same language is used about Ezekiel in Ezekiel 4:4-6:

    "Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year."

    Obviously this passage does NOT mean the sins of Israel were transferred to Ezekiel and he was punished (lay on his side) for the sins of Israel. If Israel's sins were transferred to Ezekiel and Ezekiel suffered for their sin, then Israel would not need Christ. Then we today could transfer our sins to another man, that man suffer for us and we would not need Christ either. But the idea of Israel's sins being laid to Ezekiel, that Ezekiel would bear their sins simply means Ezekiel would suffer for Israel's sins, sins that Ezekiel was not responsible for. In the same manner, Isa 53:6 means Christ suffered for the iniquities of man, sins man committed that Christ was not responsible for. Again, neither passage means sins of man was transferred to Ezekiel or Christ.

    -----------------------------------------------

    1 Peter 2:24. Some just read PART of this verse "Who his own self bare our sins" and claim this means our sins were imputed/transferred to Christ. The whole phrase says:

    "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,"

    HOW did He bare our sins? In His body on the tree. "His body on the tree" refers to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Therefore He bare our sins by His sacrifice of His body NOT by ours sins being transferred to Him. The verse about about what Christ's body accomplished (our sacrifice on the tree) and NOT about what was done to His body (our sins transferred to His body).

    1 Peter 2:25 refers back to Isaiah 53:4-6
    4 - Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
    5 - But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
    6 - All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

    THe context says Christ "borne our griefs" and "carried our sorrows". Again, these two phrases do NOT mean our sorrows and griefs were transferred to Christ. So what does "borne" and "carried" mean?

    Matthew tells us in his account in Matthew 8:14-17 where he quotes Isaiah in v17:
    14 - And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
    15 - And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
    16 - When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
    17 - That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses
    .

    Notice the sickness "left her" and the demons were "cast out". The sickness nor the demons were transferred/imputed to Christ but instead were removed, cast out. Therefore Isaiah would be understood the same way in that our infirmities and sicknesses are removed, cast out NOT imputed to Christ. Therefore when Peter (having quoted Isaiah as Matthew), says Christ "bare" (borne) our sins, it means Christ removed them, cast them off by what His body accomplished on the tree NOT imputed to His body.

    --------------------------------------------

    2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us,..."

    The underlying Greek word for sins (hamartia) also carries the idea of sacrifice or offering for sins, (see Hebrews 10:6, Hebrews 10:8). This Greek word is translated many times in the LXX as "sacrifice for sins". Hence Christ was a sacrifice for our sins and NOT our sins transferred to Christ.

    BEFORE Christ's sacrifice on the cross and AFTER His sacrifice on the cross, Christ was "undefiled, separated from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26) and was "without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19). Hence Christ was not "sin", never a receptacle for our sin but an offering/sacrifice for our sin.

    --------------------------

    Sin nor righteousness is transferred from one person to another meaning no penal substitution, no original sin.
     
  12. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    5,610
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Those are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT subjects. TULIP is false doctrine.

    But all Bible-believing Christians can agree -- ON THE BASIS OF SCRIPTURE -- that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of the whole world when He offered Himself as the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world.

    ROMANS 5 - REFORMATTED FOR CLARITY

    ADAM BROUGHT SIN AND DEATH UPON HUMANITY

    12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:.. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    THE LAW IMPUTED SIN TO THOSE WHO SIN (ALL MEN)
    13 For until the Law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no Law.

    THE PENALTY FOR SIN WAS ETERNAL DAMNATION

    16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation [damnation], but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

    WHERE SIN ABOUNDED GOD'S GRACE ABOUNDED EVEN MORE
    15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many... 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

    SINCE ALL ARE UNGODLY, CHRIST DIED FOR ALL
    6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

    GOD'S LOVE IS EXPRESSED IN CHRIST'S SACRIFICE
    8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    CHRIST'S SACRIFICE IS TOTALLY UNIQUE

    7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

    CHRIST'S SACRIFICE QUENCHED GOD'S WRATH AGAINST US
    9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

    CHRIST HAS ATONED FOR OUR SINS
    11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

    THOSE WHO BELIEVE ON CHRIST ARE RECONCILED TO GOD
    10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

    GOD'S GRACE OFFERS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH CHRIST
    17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ...
    21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

    CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS MAKES JUSTIFICATION POSSIBLE
    18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

    CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE MAKES IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS POSSIBLE
    19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
     
    Huperetes likes this.
  13. Ernest T. Bass

    Ernest T. Bass Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    329
    I agree, but penal substitution is the bases for the LIP in Tulip.

    Some background:
    The Bible clearly shows that for one to have his sins forgiven and be seen righteous-justified by God requires man's obedience to God's will......"obedience unto righteousness" Romans 6:16 and "obey from the heart...then freed from sin/justified" Romans 6:17-18. This Bible teaching obedience leads to righteousness/justification does not fit Calvinism. As I see it, penal substitution is an attempt to get around this Bible teaching trying to create the scenario where 'Christ has done everything so man does not have to do anything'. It is an attempt to get man's sins taken away by having them UNCONDITIONALLY imputed to Christ and in turn Christ's righteousness is UNCONDITIONALLY imputed to man while man sits idle doing nothing like a bump on a log.

    Christ is a propitiation, a ransom, a sacrifice for our sins, not a receptacle for our sins being transferred into Him.


    Yes, there must be law for sin to exist in man. Nothing about sin being transferred to Christ here.

    Also, 'imputed' does not mean transfer but means to put to one's account, credit one's account. If there was no law then sin could not be put to man's account. Since law does exist, when man breaks that law sin is put to his account which brings punishment to man.

    This is all fine, but I do not see a single verse that says man's sins is UNCONDITIONALLY transferred to Christ and Christ's righteousness is UNCONDITIONALLY transferred to the sinner while the sinner does nothing.

    You cite Romans 5:19. This verse does NOT say many were made sinner's UNCONDITIONALLY nor does it say many made righteous UNCONDITIONALLY. Calvinists assume the word UNCONDITIONAL into the verse.

    One man (Adam) choosing to sin made him a sinner, his sin did not unconditionally make all other men sinners too. Men are conditionally made sinners for they, like Adam, have choose to sin Romans 5:12..."sin unto death" Romans 6:16. Likewise the obedience of Christ does not make you nor me UNCONDITIONALLY righteous too. As Christ choose to obey God, we too must choose to obey God to be righteous..."obedience unto righteousness" Romans 6:16.

    Nothing here says sin or righteousness is transferred from one person to another but it does show being a sinner or being righteous is conditional upon what man chooses. Calvinists try and use this verse to push the man made idea of original sin by ASSUMING Adam's sin is UNCONDITIONALLY transferred to all at birth. If such were the case, then it is also true that Christ's righteousness would be likewise UNCONDITIONALLY transferred to all men and you have Universalism. If one is true, then the other must be true also. Calvinists want Adam's sin transferred to all men UNconditionally yet back off of having Christ's righteousness transferred to all men UNconditionally. They have a logical inconsistency with this verse.
    Again, NOTHING in this verse, or any other verse, says sin or righteousness is unconditionally transferred from one person to another while men sit idle.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2019
    Episkopos likes this.
  14. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Active Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    229
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    This is wrong. The word hamartia is never used in the New Testament to mean 'sin offering.' In Hebrew 10:6 & 8, the term used is peri harmartias, literally, '[things] concerning sin.' In Hebrews 10:18, it is prosphera hamartias and in Hebrews 10:12, 26, the term is hamartion thusia, translated 'sacrifice for sins.'

    Moreover the word hamartia is used twice in 2 Corinthians 5:21. It would be very strange if the word was used in two different ways in the same sentence, but to say, 'God made Him who knew no sinoffering to be a sin offering for us' makes no sense.

    No, Our Lord was made sin for us by imputation. All the sins of His people were imputed to Him and He bore them. Isaiah explains: 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' This is seen typically in the various sacrifices for sin in the O.T. The creatures to be sacrificed had to be 'without blemish and without spot' (eg. Leviticus 1:3). In the Yom Kippur sacrifice (Leviticus 16:20-21) the priest lays his hands on the scapegoat and transfers all the sins of Israel onto it. The goat itself did not become blemished, but the sins were imputed to it. It bore away the sins of the Israelites, just as '[Christ] Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' He took away our sins (John 1:29). He also bore away the curse that was on us for sin, becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). That is why Peter writes of a 'tree' rather than a cross.
     
  15. marks

    marks Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    Likes Received:
    3,686
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hi Steve,

    You give an impressive presentation!

    On this part, above, do you have any thoughts on where Jesus told His disciples that they would indeed drink the cup He was going to drink? I've understood this as the suffering caused by the people before His actual death, as this the disciples were going to face also.

    Your thoughts?

    Much love!
     
    Steve Owen likes this.
  16. David Taylor

    David Taylor Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,043
    Likes Received:
    549
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Really? Isaiah 53:5 explicitly that He is punished for us.
     
  17. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Active Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    229
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    First of all, thanks for your kind words, and even more, thanks for reading it! I don't get the impression that anyone else has. :rolleyes:

    It is obvious that James' and John's cup of suffering could not be redemptive; they were sinners.
    What the Lord Jesus meant is simply that they would suffer as He would. Despite His various warnings, they had no idea of what He was about to go through and imagined it to be easy. But James is martyred in Acts 12:2 and John, although Church history tells us that he did not suffer death as a martyr, did suffer some pretty horrendous persecution.

    But the Lord Jesus' cup of suffering was redemptive. It has to be. If He has not drunk the cup of God's wrath against sin on our behalf, we shall have to drink it ourselves, for outside of Christ, we are the wicked described in Psalms 75:8.
     
  18. Ernest T. Bass

    Ernest T. Bass Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    329
    Again, hamartia is used many times in the LXX as 'sin offering' or sin sacrifice for that is the inherent meaning of the word. This is why Hebrews 10:8 KJV translates it as 'sacrifices for sin'. The word 'sin' in 2 Cor 5:21 is used figuratively, as a synecdoche where it includes sin offering.

    Look what Calvinists Albert Barnes (in blue) has to say about 2 Cor 5:21 and Christ being made sin: (my emp)

    To be sin - The words ‹to be‘ are not in the original. Literally, it is, ‹he has made him sin, or a sin-offering‘ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν hamartian epoiēsen. But what is meant by this? What is the exact idea which the apostle intended to convey? I answer, it cannot be:

    (1) That he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend this. The expression must be, therefore, in some sense, figurative.

    Nor,

    (2) Can it mean that he was a sinner, for it is said in immediate connection that he “knew no sin,” and it is everywhere said that he was holy, harmless, undefiled. Nor,

    (3) Can it mean that he was, in any proper sense of the word, guilty, for no one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressor of the Law; and if he was, in any proper sense, guilty, then he deserved to die, and his death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if he was properly guilty it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings.

    But all such views as go to make the Holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings which he endured, border on blasphemy, and are abhorrent to the whole strain of the Scriptures. In no form, in no sense possible, is it to be maintained that the Lord Jesus was sinful or guilty. It is a corner stone of the whole system of religion, that in all conceivable senses of the expression he was holy, and pure, and the object of the divine approbation. And every view which fairly leads to the statement that he was in any sense guilty, or which implies that he deserved to die, is “prima facie” a false view, and should be at once abandoned. But,

    (4) If the declaration that he was made “sin” ( ἁμαρτίαν hamartian) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering - an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner. The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering, is adopted by Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Rosenmuller, and others; the latter, that it means that God treated him as a sinner, is adopted by Vorstius, Schoettgen, Robinson (Lexicon), Dr. Bull, and others. There are many passages in the Old Testament where the word “sin” ( ἁμαρτία hamartia) is used in the sense of sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin. Thus, Hosea 4:8, “They eat up the sin of my people;” that is, the sin-offerings; see Ezekiel 43:22, Ezekiel 43:25; Ezekiel 44:29; Ezekiel 45:22-23, Ezekiel 45:25.
    "


    Again, Matthew 8:15-17 shines light on what the words bore, borne or carried mean and they mean to cast away, to remove and not impute into Christ.
     
  19. Ernest T. Bass

    Ernest T. Bass Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    329
    Hi,

    Christ suffered for us where we would not have to suffer in eternal torment. Yet Isa 53:5 does not say our sins, our guilt and penalty of sin was imputed into Christ. Christ offering Himself on the cross provided a way for man to have his sins forgiven, to be cast away, washed away by the blood of Christ and only those who submit to the will of God in obedience are the one's whose sins are taken away. This does not fit Calvinism so Calvinism finds away for man to have sins transferred to Christ so Christ now possesses the guilty and penalty of sin while men sits doing nothing.

    No verse teaches sin is transferred to Christ or that Christ's righteousness is unconditionally transferred to the sinner while the sinner sits idle and in disobedience to God's will.

    Matthew quotes Isaiah 53:4 himself in Matthew 8:14-17:
    And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
    And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
    When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses
    .

    Matthew cites two miracles Christ performed then directly links those two miracles to Isaiah's prophecy in Isa 53.

    Here's the point: That sickness (fever) nor the demons were imputed into Christ's body. Instead the sickness left, it was removed and the demons cast out. Therefore Isaiah's prophecy would be understood the same way, that being, our griefs and sorrows were removed, cast out and NOT imputed in Christ. When Peter says Christ bore/bare/carried our sins (1 Peter 2:24) means Christ removed, cast out our sins by the sacrifice of His body on the tree and NOT imputed our sins and guilt and penalty of our sins into Himself.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2019
    Episkopos likes this.
  20. David Taylor

    David Taylor Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,043
    Likes Received:
    549
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    You might want to read Is. 53:5 in context of the whole chapter....not to mention he was pierced for what? OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, he was crushed for OUR iniquities. This is specifically saying Christ is receiving this punishment for our sin.
     
Loading...