Biblical Facts against PSA !
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
GeneZ
Well-known member
So why should anyone listen to you?
GeneZ
Well-known member
Its not the gun that kills people.
Its people that kill people.
The people that crucified Christ?
They were as a gun in the Father's hand.
Like a knife at the altar did not slaughter the lamb.
The priest holding and controlling the knife, did.
But it was the will of the Lord to totally crush/bruise Him, causing Him to suffer.
Because He gives His life as a gift on the altar for sin, He will see His children.
Days will be added to His life, and the will of the Lord will do well in His hand.
Isaiah 53:10
Diserner
Well-known member
Diserner
Well-known member
Wicked men killed him.
But God is the one who gave justice that day.
And it included atonement for what they did.
No, their sin did not atone for their sin.
God poured the full measure of justice!
civic
Well-known member
Where does the bible say it was Gods justice ?
Diserner
Well-known member
Where does it say it wasn't.
civic
Well-known member
I'm losing count of how many arguments from silence I have counted today. That speaks volumes.
GeneZ
Well-known member
The real payment for sin was having our sins pierce him...... while he hung on the Cross.
Causing Him to anguish in torment because He was forsaken by the Father and Holy Spirit!
But he was pierced by our transgressions, he was crushed by our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we
are healed." Isaiah 53:5
The pain that man gave Him to get him on the Cross?
It was nothing in comparison to Him to what He suffered while bearing our sins!
When men whipped him and nailed him to the Cross?
He did not even give a peep!
He handled all the human brutality that the men gave him in silence!
He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth." Isaiah 53:7
You yet have no idea of the anguish Jesus suffered when our sins caused the Father and Holy Spirit to withdraw!
That is when Jesus began crying out in agony! Before that? He remained silent no matter what man dished out!
And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”
(which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) Mark 15:34
Being forsaken because of our sins being placed on his body? That was what agonized Jesus!!!!
Being forsaken by God was the PUNISHMENT for sin! Not being "severely spanked."
The punishment for sin was His unfathomable agony of soul!
His body's pain was not punishment for our sin.
Being SEPARATED from His LOVE of the Father was punishment! His LOVE was God!
He who had no sin did not deserve to be forsaken by God!
Its for our punishment that He died spiritually on the Cross!
He took our due punishment upon Himself!
We get to stop being superficial as maturity in Christ sets in.
We get to see what real anguish and redemption is.
grace and peace ...............
GeneZ
Well-known member
That was man's INJUSTICE! He was innocent!
Diserner
Well-known member
civic
Well-known member
No He was Just One and you were unjust.
Diserner
Well-known member
God does not violate justice.
Justice was done that day.
That is why my conscience can truly rest... God didn't cheat or find a loophole.
Paid
In
Full
civic
Well-known member
And where was justice served ? Got scripture ?
GeneZ
Well-known member
Yes....
He also bore the reason you had guilt, and took it away.
That is why it says you and I have been crucified with Christ. Galatians 2:20
grace and peace ................
GeneZ
Well-known member
The lamb that was sacrificed was "without spot or blemish."
Like a lamb.. Jesus was just, dying for the unjust.
Johann
Well-known member
Penal Substitution
First, an essential – and indeed, central – facet of any biblically
adequate atonement theory is penal substitution. Penal substitution in a theological context is the doctrine that God inflicted upon
Christ the suffering that we deserved as the punishment for our
sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment. Notice
that this explication leaves open the question whether Christ was
punished for our sins. Some defenders of penal substitution recoil
at the thought that God punished His beloved Son for our sins.
Rather, God afflicted Christ with the suffering which, had it been
inflicted upon us, would have been our just desert and, hence,
punishment.
In other words, Christ was not punished, but he
endured the suffering that would have been our punishment had
it been inflicted on us.
We do not want to exclude by definition
such accounts as being penal substitutionary theories, since Christ
on such accounts suffers as our substitute and bears what would
have been our punishment, thereby freeing us from punishment.
Of course, this explication also permits the penal substitution
theorist to affirm that Christ was, indeed, punished in our place
and so bore the punishment for our sins.
No atonement theory which omits penal substitution can hope
to account adequately for the biblical data we have surveyed,
particularly Isaiah 53 and its NT employment. More than that,
penal substitution, if true, could not be a merely tangential facet of
an adequate atonement theory, for it would prove foundational to
so many other aspects of the atonement, such as redemption from
sin, satisfaction of divine justice, and the moral influence of
Christ’s example. So a multifaceted atonement theory must
include penal substitution at its center.
The doctrine of penal substitution, ever since the time of
Socinus, has faced formidable, and some would say insuperable,
philosophical challenges. In discussing these challenges, our aim is
to explore some of the various options open to the Christian
thinker.
A discussion of such challenges takes us into lively debates
over questions in the philosophy of law, particularly questions
about the theory of punishment. Unfortunately, most theologians,
and in fact most Christian philosophers, have little familiarity with
these debates.
The doctrine of penal substitution is usually dismissed by its critics in a single paragraph, even a single sentence, to
the effect that it would be unjust of God to punish an innocent
person for others’ sins, end of discussion. We need to go deeper.
One’s theory of punishment should offer both a definition of
punishment and a justification of punishment, aspects of the theory
of punishment that legal philosophers have teased apart only in
recent decades.
A definition of punishment will enable us to determine whether some act counts as punishment, while a justification
of punishment will help us to determine whether a punitive act is
permitted or even required, depending on one’s theory. Both of
these aspects of the theory of punishment are relevant to the
doctrine of penal substitution. Indeed, penal substitution is not
infrequently discussed in an entirely nontheological context. It will
be up to the Christian philosopher to make the theological
application.
A cautionary word is, however, in order at this point.
The punishment that is discussed by legal theorists and philosophers of law is almost invariably legal punishment in the context of
criminal law. Even when discussing penalties that are mandated by
civil law rather than criminal law, the framework is still legal. One is
discussing punishment as administered by the state as part of
a system of justice. While analogous to divine justice, human
systems of justice will also have features that are significantly
disanalogous to divine justice. To give an obvious example, the
state may be forced not to administer punishment as a result of lack
of prison space due to overcrowding and lack of resources. God is
evidently not so hampered. Still, legal theorists and philosophers of
law have poured an enormous amount of thought into the theory of
punishment, and so, given the widespread presence of forensic
and judicial motifs in the biblical texts pertinent to the atonement,
we may expect to learn a great deal from them.
WC.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Grace violates justice. Grace is why the suffering Servant was the Atonement.
Diserner
Well-known member
That's completely untrue.
You see, it is the idolatrous values of man to create a set of values that represent moral good external to even God himself. This means, there is a set of values that is justice or goodness, to which God himself is somehow beholden. But God is the only source and grounding of all worth, being the infinite source and upholder of all things, a unique place of importance.
With that importance making him the sole source of value, his creation only obtains value by him valuing it, and not inherently of itself. With that importance, God has a unique authority—in such that sins are against against him personally rather than some external code, he is in a place of full authority to dictate exactly what he feels is adequate recompense that sustains his value.
So the beauty of God's grace and mercy, is that it actually still maintains justice fully. It is not God cheating or dealing under the table or lowering the requirements or taking a bribe or altering his holiness, no! God forbid! God has found a way to completely maintain justice and still offer absolute mercy. Since justice is his own value, God himself can maintain his value with a system of atonement.
God can express his infinite hatred of sin, and his infinite valuation of himself, which is not pride or egoism, since those things require a person to not correspond to the worth they set upon themselves. The reason it is pride for us, is because we are not the infinite source and upholder of all that is. Now God, by punishing himself vicariously through a mystical union with us, completely maintains his value to his satisfaction!
So as guilty criminals who deserve God's wrath, if we have in some way actually experienced all the wrath we had coming to us, there is no more wrath left for justice to mete out. In Christ we have fully received our punishment just as if we actually experienced it, because the Judge is also the currency of moral valuation, and has the authority to set what he deems values himself; which is of course, himself; and only himself could possibly value himself enough.
Thus truth and mercy kiss at the Cross.
We are pardoned without cheating.
We are forgiven under justice.
Christ paid it all.
The Gospel.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
So Grace is merited by justice?
That is basically what you're saying. You are placing Justice above Grace. Yet it is Grace that brought the Atonement. Not Justice.
Similar threads
