If you deny PSA, you have become an OT Jew.

[TomL]

2 Co 5:21 [YLT] for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.

Unless you have some strange definition of your own, this one looks BIBLICAL to me (irrespective of PSA) ... there was an "imputation" from man to Christ and an "imputation" from Christ to man ... found in the words "make/become" in YLT Bible.

nope

Christ cannot be metaphysically made sin

Verse 21. For he hath made him to be sin for us] Τον μη γνοντα ἁμαρτιαν, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν· He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent,) a sin-offering for us. The word ἁμαρτια occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i. e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i. e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so, nil conscire sibi, to be conscious of nothing against one’s self, is the same as nulla pallescere culpa, to be unimpeachable.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה‎ chattaah and חטאת‎ chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own1

1 Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes (vol. 6, New Edition.; Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation, 2014), 338–339.

Did you get that the greek Harmartia is translated as sin offering 94 times in the septuagint

And Isaiah informs

Isaiah 53:10 (ESV) — 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.

and further the text does not state Christ's righteous is imputed to man

and

Proverbs 17:26 (KJV 1900) — 26 Also to punish the just is not good, Nor to strike princes for equity.

 

[TomL]

I don't want to prove a theory I don't ascribe to ... I lean towards Christus Victor.

I am simply opposed to Revisionist History and to demonizing Reformed Theology for everything up to and including the Hole in the Ozone and Climate Change. [that was hyperbole ... given your record with the facts, I felt I should make that clear.]

However, your OPINIONS aside: a peer reviewed theology journal published an article quoting the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS from a Master's Thesis that offers argument that there was discussion of a payment for sin to God made LONG before any great grandfather of a great grandfather of a Reformer was born. As I STATED (and you ignored) the idea of the Atonement as a Substitutionary Payment to God for Our Sin predates the Protestant Reformation ... by a LOT. The Reformers just embraced THAT existing theory over all other competing theories.

The revisionist history is reading PSA in the early church fathers as real church historians will testify to even most Calvinist historians

In any case there are all those particulars to PSA that no previous atonement theory had to be accounted for

 

[TomL]

The revisionist history is reading PSA in the early church fathers as real church historians will testify to even most Calvinist historians

In any case there are all those particulars to PSA that no previous atonement theory had to be accounted for

Yes it is. Historians so testify. It is partisans who read their views back into history. Seeing one or two familar items they say PSA ignoring the rest

 

[Samson]

God did not abandon Jesus on the cross or pour out his wrath upon him.

All you have to do is look at the trust David has, which is also prophetically seen in Jesus, that is clearly shown In Psalm 22:19-24. There is a plea for God to deliver, followed by a significant declaration of God’s faithful character—that he will respond to this cry for help.

19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
Psalm 22:19-24

Did you catch the last verse? David writes that God “has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one.” (Psalm 22:24) Not only that, but God “has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.”

God did not despise Jesus on the cross, in fact, He did not even hid his face. This directly and forcefully contradicts any notion that God turned His face away from Jesus during the crucifixion. David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says that God has not hidden his face from Jesus at all.

 

[TomL]

God did not abandon Jesus on the cross or pour out his wrath upon him.

All you have to do is look at the trust David has, which is also prophetically seen in Jesus, that is clearly shown In Psalm 22:19-24. There is a plea for God to deliver, followed by a significant declaration of God’s faithful character—that he will respond to this cry for help.

19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
Psalm 22:19-24

Did you catch the last verse? David writes that God “has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one.” (Psalm 22:24) Not only that, but God “has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.”

God did not despise Jesus on the cross, in fact, He did not even hid his face. This directly and forcefully contradicts any notion that God turned His face away from Jesus during the crucifixion. David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says that God has not hidden his face from Jesus at all.

Yes that is the truth of the matter, God had not hidden his face from Christ

He was in fact

2 Corinthians 5:18–19 (KJV 1900) — 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

[Cyrus]

I like this one.

Jeremiah 31:2-30, Ezekiel 18:20, and Deuteronomy 24:16 tell us that a person is put to death for his own sin and that the wickedness of the wicked is upon himself. That isn't the case in penal substitution.

Looking at the Law, a person who murdered couldn't sacrifice an animal to atone for it. He must pay. It's also important to note that verses like Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles/4 Kings 25:4, and Ezekiel 18:19-20 make a strong case against the idea of substitutionary punishments.

 

[TomL]

I like this one.

Jeremiah 31:2-30, Ezekiel 18:20, and Deuteronomy 24:16 tell us that a person is put to death for his own sin and that the wickedness of the wicked is upon himself. That isn't the case in penal substitution.

Looking at the Law, a person who murdered couldn't sacrifice an animal to atone for it. He must pay. It's also important to note that verses like Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles/4 Kings 25:4, and Ezekiel 18:19-20 make a strong case against the idea of substitutionary punishments.

Also

Proverbs 17:26 (KJV 1900) — 26 Also to punish the just is not good, Nor to strike princes for equity.

 

[Cyrus]

Also

Proverbs 17:26 (KJV 1900) — 26 Also to punish the just is not good, Nor to strike princes for equity.

Good one Tom!

 

[TomL]

Good one Tom!

Thanks.

Proverbs 17:15 (NASB 2020) — 15 One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

If God can forgive without "wrath" and "punishment," the death of Jesus was in no way necessary nor related to forgiveness.

If you deny Jesus' suffered the punishment of your sins, you don't believe the death of Jesus holds any logical connection or significance to removing sins.

You might think Jesus was really special and even "God," but Jesus no longer pays for your sins—you are under the OT Law.

In the Old Testament, if you committed a sin, you had to confess it, repent, and abandon that lifestyle.
In the New Testament, if you committed a sin, you had to confess it, repent, and abandon that lifestyle.

To forgive a sin, in the Old Testament God demanded a broken, contrite heart.
To forgive a sin, in the New Testament God demands a broken, contrite heart.

So, the sacrifice of Jesus did not change the way God has forgiven sins across history.
Whatever you think about Jesus sacrifice, you must still do the same thing that Ninevites did when Jonah preached to them. The same thing that the tax collector did, and that the Pharisee did not. The same thing that the Prodigal Son did.

 

[Dizerner]

In the Old Testament, if you committed a sin, you had to confess it, repent, and abandon that lifestyle.
In the New Testament, if you committed a sin, you had to confess it, repent, and abandon that lifestyle.

In the Old Testament, faith in the sacrificial system represented your sins being judged in the future.
In the New Testament, faith in Jesus' sacrifice was your sins actually being judged.

Please study this passage carefully:

24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3:24-26 NKJ)

Notice that ALL sins "passed over" are not swept under the rug, forgotten about, ignored, counted as "no biggie," or minimized.

Rather they are all propitiated by Christ's Blood as a demonstration of God's righteousness in the present time.

Jesus wasn't just a good guy dying for a good cause, he was the mercy seat where our sins are judged and expiated—all sins of all time.

To forgive a sin, in the Old Testament God demanded a broken, contrite heart.
To forgive a sin, in the New Testament God demands a broken, contrite heart.

This was not all God demanded—God demanded the death of his Son, who suffered for our sins, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God.

So, the sacrifice of Jesus did not change the way God has forgiven sins across history.

No one ever said it did.

Whatever you think about Jesus sacrifice, you must still do the same thing that Ninevites did when Jonah preached to them. The same thing that the tax collector did, and that the Pharisee did not. The same thing that the Prodigal Son did.

Well, amen.

And you still need sacrifice, you don't bypass it, or ignore it.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This was not all God demanded—God demanded the death of his Son, who suffered for our sins, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God.

If what you say is true, then either

• God forgot to reveal that small detail for thousands of years and then, out of a sudden, overnight, He began asking that additional requisite, or
• God did not forget... it is just that He was not interested in forgiving and renewing the heart of anybody. King David was not forgiven nor his heart renewed. Isaiah was not forgiven. The Ninevites were not forgiven.

The Old Testament has 23,145 verses which were written for over 1,000 years. In which of them God lets Israel know that sacrificed lambs and bulls represented the Messiah to come? Or that the High Priest represented that Messiah to come?

I invite you to think about this and let us know your opinion.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

And you still need sacrifice, you don't bypass it, or ignore it.

The sacrifice we need is a spiritual sacrifice. Jesus blood sacrifice is a symbol of the spiritual sacrifice of our old lives that God requires.
The spiritual sacrifice means to come to God with a broken spirit, crucify the old man and be resurrected (or "born again") into a new life.
Here is the biblical support:

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise. (Psalm 51:17)

"You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5)

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:1)

knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. (Romans 6:6)

when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, (Ephesians 2:5,6)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

In the Old Testament, faith in the sacrificial system represented your sins being judged in the future.
In the New Testament, faith in Jesus' sacrifice was your sins actually being judged.

Hi Dizerner

Thank you very much for keeping this conversation open and for sharing with me and the readers your views.

When you examine the Old Testament, there is no hint whatsoever that God placed the sinner in a kind of "waiting room" for his sins to be forgiven in the distant future, when the Messiah would appear and atone for those sins.
On the contrary: The Old Testament shows God forgiving and changing people in the present.
This is why the Psalmist could say: "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered." (Psalm 23:2) and "You have forgiven the iniquity of Your people; You have covered all their sin." (Psalm 85:2)

Isaiah was granted the certainty of having his sins purged at that moment, not in the distant future
Behold, this has touched your lips; Your iniquity is taken away, And your sin purged.” (Isaiah 6:6)

****

It is also important to remark that in no verse in the Torah in which God explains that the sacrificial system represents a process that would take place many centuries ahead, by the Messiah.

Please study this passage carefully:

24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3:24-26 NKJ)

Notice that ALL sins "passed over" are not swept under the rug, forgotten about, ignored, counted as "no biggie," or minimized.

If you read the whole chapter and the whole epistle, you will notice that Paul is trying to bring converts from Jew and Greek origin to unity.
Paul is telling them that no one should despise the other, because both groups had sinned, and both needed salvation.
Paul is comparing the past life of both groups (Jews and Greeks) and finding them comparable. God had been merciful with both of them, passing over their sins and giving them a chance to a new life.
Paul is not saying that King David or Isaiah or the Ninevites in ancient times had not been forgiven/renewed/saved.