Isaiah 53 the origin of PSA
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
Joe like me is a former calvinist for many years who left calvinism around the same time as me. We both came from another site ( CARM ) where we use to debate together against non calvinists all of the time. He is a member here. He has started several threads in this forum called penal substitution theory which is where I quoted his posts from in this thread. He knows PSA and Calvinsm inside out and knows his bible well.
hope this helps !!!
Johann
Well-known member
Reviewed in Canada on 13 June 2020
Verified Purchase
A wise old missionary from India gave me a gem of his wisdom before he died. While discussing a few age-old doctrinal debates where people tend to choose one side or the other, he sighed, "the devil always tries to drive us to one extreme or the other". The Bible does say that our Creator can be an angry and wrathful God and the Bible does say that God is love. Are we expected to believe only one or the other extreme? Or is there a way to understand how His integrity can remain uncompromised when he does pour out his wrath and anger? So, did God pour out his pent up anger and wrath on His beloved Son when he hung on a cross? But doesn't the Bible promise that his beloved ones are not appointed to wrath? While the truth is sometimes in between opposing views or while both sides of a debate can sometimes remain in tension, this debate is now settled and confirmed on the side of a loving God for yours truly. The interlocking scriptural evidence presented in this short book by Drs. Kreider and Bar is beyond sufficient to prove their case. I believe that current world events are pointing to the soon return of Christ and if it's almost time to stand before the judge of all the earth, this book only intensifies my belief that God's faithful ones will stand confidently before a loving Father. My advice. Read the book prayerfully several times and let it sink in.
Another review-
4.0 out of 5 stars A Certainly helpful and challenging book, but needs further thought, I felt
Reviewed in the United States on 29 June 2020
Verified Purchase
I really enjoyed this book. Truly. What it does best is challenges our view of God and ensures it is actually steeped in the Word of God, not in the teachings of men. That much was made abundantly apparent. Now, I could say much more about this book but my main concern, after, again this prior compliment and the overall enjoyment I felt in reading this book (it was hard to put down! I think I read it in 1-2 days! LOL!) is that it is incomplete.
For one, I think we need to have an additional book just on what does the wrath of God entail? I did a study in seminary on the main word for wrath (“orge”) in the NT and we discovered that the term is only ever used of the anger or wrath of God outpoured temporally, not eternally (Romans 1 and the wrath of God in the tribulation period bear this out). And, after reading this book, I have to ask:
Did Jesus suffer the wrath of God?
It’s something the authors touch upon but I think something to which more thought should be given.
That being said, it is also true that God is a God of wrath and justice and whether all of it was poured on Jesus or not still doesn’t change the fact that often man has, does, or will bear it. And the only way to avoid it is by faith in His Son.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification, I understand, but these are a few points that I think the book should have further explored.
Again, if anything, what the book does well is challenges what we believe happened to Jesus on the cross. Absolutely it was substitutionary and covered sin, but it doesn’t appear to have been God’s wrath that was poured out, per say, on Jesus.
Sometimes I felt as if the authors sidestepped or softened the wrath or anger of God, which I know was to rightly correct and teach a proper or better view of God, but I don’t think doing this necessarily helps their cause (the Flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the coming destruction of Babylon, for example).
Anyway, what I’m getting at is that the book really challenged me to make sure I’m thinking of God, the atonement, and the wrath of God rightly. But I do believe there is more to be done in this way. I’m not probably the one to do it, lol, but it’s something I want to point out to the authors and whoever reads this work.
Thank y’all for writing it and for ensuring we have a view of God as loving and forgiving, and not a Divine murderer. That was definitely a point that needed clarification. Solid guys! Keep it up!
civic
Well-known member
Divine Love was demonstrated on the cross, not wrath.
Many would replace love in these passages with wrath. And nowhere in all of scripture is wrath once mentioned with the cross.
John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
John 10:11
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
Romans 5:8
But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
1 John 3:16
By this we know what love is: Jesus laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
hope this helps !!!
Many would replace love in these passages with wrath. And nowhere in all of scripture is wrath once mentioned with the cross.
John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
John 10:11
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
Romans 5:8
But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
1 John 3:16
By this we know what love is: Jesus laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
hope this helps !!!
Johann
Well-known member
So would you say -since I hold to PSA as biblical that I am a Calvinist-since you put PSA and Calvinism under the same umbrella?
civic
Well-known member
PSA goes hand in hand with TULIP- they are 2 side of the same coin, the same theological systematic as I demonstrated in another thread.
Some do not understand the full implications when it comes to the doctrine of PSA and how it related to all the points in TULIP. They fir together like a hand in a glove. They synchronize/harmonize with one another.
But that in no way, shape of form means they are biblical. In fact they are unbiblcal doctrines formed by man during the reformation by Calvinists/Reformers.
hope this helps !!!
Johann
Well-known member
37. Thus, it is completely misguided to suggest that penal substitution involves a serious compromise of
God’s loving nature. Some argue that everything the Bible says about God has to be “tempered, interpreted,
understood and seen through the one primary lens of God’s love.”13 Thus, through this lens, any understanding
of the death of Christ which relies upon biblical expressions such as “the wrath of God”, “the curse of God”, or
“propitiation” is flawed because it has not understood the deeply metaphorical nature of this language.14
However, this objection too fails at a number of levels. Firstly, it ignores the fact that the Bible is not at all
reluctant to speak about the wrath of God (e.g., Isa. 51:22; Hos. 8:5; Rom. 1:18ff. Col. 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:10).
Secondly, it gives no convincing criteria for determining that the language of divine wrath and a penalty for sin
is metaphorical while the language of divine love is not. Thirdly, it misunderstands the nature of metaphor,
which for all its distinctiveness as a mode of speech remains a means of describing reality.15 Fourthly, it
suggests love and wrath are mutually incompatible in a way that the Bible and classic theology does not.16
Finally, it is simply reductionist. God reveals so much more about himself than the wonderful truth that he loves
the creatures he has made. John writes that “God is love” but in the same letter he insists “God is light” (1
John 4:8, 16 and 1:5). God’s love and righteousness are complementary, not contradictory aspects of his
character. And the substitutionary penal death of Christ is exactly the point at which this is centrally
demonstrated (Rom. 3:25-26; 5:8-9).
God is Love-and Holy and Just
civic
Well-known member
Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity. All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.
God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4:19 tells us.
We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.
God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.
Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. Why? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.
Let’s examine how this works in conjunction with Gods sovereignty and His love. God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect with God have been revealed plainly to us by God in His word. He has done this both through his word and his works. And God has sworn never to change for He is Immutable.
God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is very everlasting, for God is love. The love of God has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture.
The fact that God can do something is not a justification for Him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that He can do is restricted by the standard that God values most which is His love. If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because He is sovereign. If God does it just because He is sovereign then He would not be God but something else.
What makes God, God is so intricately bound to his intent for doing things that if He were to do a thing just by virtue of the fact that He is sovereign and can do it rather than by virtue of the fact that it is loving? He would not be God as we know Him but something else. If sovereignty is what defines what makes up love in such a way that God doing anything is what defines love, then love has no meaning and can be anything and everything it is and opposes any time, which is ridiculous.
This below is from the Calvinist Theologian Abraham Kuyper on God is love:
“Before God created heaven and earth with all their inhabitants, the eternal Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shone with unseen splendor in the divine Being. Love exists, not for the sake of the world, but for God's sake; and when the world came into existence, Love remained unchanged; and if every creature were to disappear, it would remain just as rich and glorious as ever. Love exists and works in the Eternal Being apart from the creature; and its radiation upon the, creature is but a feeble reflection of its being.
Love is not God, but God is Love; and He is sufficient to Himself to love absolutely and forever. He has no need of the creature, and the exercise of His Love did not begin with the creature whom He could love, but it flows and springs eternally in the Love-life of the Triune God. God is Love; its perfection, divine beauty, real dimensions, and holiness are not found in men, not even in the best of God's children, but scintillate only around the Throne of God.
The unity of Love with the Confession of the Trinity is the starting-point from which we proceed to base Love independently in God, absolutely independent of the creature or anything creaturely. This is not to make the divine Trinity a philosophic deduction from essential love. That is unlawful; if God had not revealed this mystery in His Word we should be totally ignorant of it. But since the Scripture puts the Triune Being before us as the Object of our adoration, and upon almost every page most highly exalts the mutual Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and delineates it as an Eternal Love, we know and plainly see that this holy Love may never be represented but as springing from the mutual love of the divine Persons.
Hence through the mystery of the Trinity, the Love which is in God and is God obtains its independent existence, apart from the creature, independent of the emotions of mind and heart; and it rises as a sun, with its own fire and rays, outside of man, in God, in whom it rests and from whom it radiates.
In this way we eradicate every comparison of the Love of God with our love. In this way the false mingling ceases. In principle we resist the reversing of positions whereby arrogant man had succeeded in copying from himself a so-called God of Love, and into silencing all adoration. In this way the soul returns to the blessed confession that God is Love, and the way of divine mercy and pity is opened whereby the brightness of that Sun can radiate in a human way, i.e., in a finite and imperfect manner to and in the human heart, to the praise of God. “From his book on the Work of the Holy Spirit Volume 3, Second Chapter Love- xviii Love in the Triune Being of God “
hope this helps !!!
Johann
Well-known member
Well-since you said it, I am a Calvinist then-because PSA is biblical-indissolubly echad with all the other interpretations of Kippur/At-one-ment.
civic
Well-known member
do you know what TULIP means ?
Johann
Well-known member
Yes-do I agree? No.
civic
Well-known member
Then you are not a calvinist and I think you do not understand the connection between PSA and the elect,predestined and limited atonement and this is where wrath comes into the picture with the atonement. Jesus only bore the wrath of God for the elect- everyone else is condemned since Jesus did not atone for their sins.
The gospel under PSA is not for everyone, all the world but only for the elect. This is where U, L and I come into play.
Since Gods wrath was necessary to be poured out on Christ and there is still Gods wrath to come that falls upon all of the nonelect reprobates , Christs atonement was only for the elect whom Christ endured Gods wrath for on the cross- the limited atonement for the elect.. All others who are the non elect will suffer Gods wrath in the future. This view of the atonement was necessary for reformed theology to fit into their TULIP doctrine and make the atonement work with those other doctrines that were invented by man. Those who support PSA must also support the U/L in tulip. They are 2 sides of the same coin. Justice with the atonement came with the PSA doctrine. It was not taught prior to PSA when the doctrine came into being as we know it now from Hodges in the 1800's with his systematic theology. Just like tulip did not exist until after Calvin died and the doctrine was developed in Dort. PSA is a recent modern day heresy. Those who reject Pre Tribulationalism because its the newest eschatological view must also reject PSA since its the most recent view of the Atonement. See the double standards ?
Isaiah 53 - actually opposes PSA- the calvinist twists this in parenthesis
Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we ( GOD )should look at him,
and no beauty that we ( GOD )should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,(GOD)
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men(GOD) hide their (HIS ) faces
he was despised( BY GOD ), and we ( GOD ) esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we (GOD )esteemed him stricken,- (PSA teaches God)
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; ( by man )
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; ( not born a sinner- no TD )
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, ( man led Him )
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; ( mans oppression, not God )
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; ( no wrath on Jesus )- the word can mean humble, contrite, oppress
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,( reconciled to God, mans deliverance, redeemed, ransom, substitute, atonement)
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. ( atonement- no wrath )
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Johann
Well-known member
I disagree-to the fact/assumption that Isaiah 53 opposes PSA.
LXX
Isa 53:1 O LORD, who trusted our report? And the arm of the LORD, to whom was it uncovered?
Isa 53:2 We announced as of a male child before him, as a root in a land thirsting. There is no appearance to him, nor glory; and we beheld him, and he does not have appearance nor beauty.
Isa 53:3 But his appearance was without honor, and wanting by sons of men. A man [for calamity being], and knowing how to bear infirmity. For he turned his face; he was dishonored and was not considered. [PENAL]
Isa 53:4 This one [our sins bore], and on account of us he was grieved. And we considered him to be for misery, and for calamity by God, and for ill treatment. [PENAL]
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded because of our sins, and he was made infirm on account of our lawless deeds. The discipline for our peace was upon him; by his stripe we were healed. [PENAL]
Isa 53:6 [all as sheep We were wandered]. A man [in his way was wandered], and the LORD delivered him up for our sins.
Isa 53:7 And he on account of being inflicted by evil opened not his mouth. [as a sheep unto slaughter He was led], and as a lamb before the one shearing is voiceless, so he did not open his mouth.
Isa 53:8 In the humiliation, in his equity, he was lifted away. [his generation Who shall describe]? For [was lifted away from the earth his life]. Because of the lawless deeds of my people he was led unto death.
Isa 53:9 And I shall give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death. For [lawlessness he did not commit], nor was treachery in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 And the LORD willed to cleanse him of the beating. If you should offer for a sin offering the thing for your life, he shall see [seed a long-lived].
Isa 53:11 And the LORD willed by his hand to remove misery of his soul, to show to him light, and to shape in the understanding; to justify the just one, the good one serving many, and [their sins he shall bear].
Isa 53:12 On account of this he shall inherit many; and of the strong ones he will portion out spoils, because [was delivered up unto death his soul]; and [among the lawless ones he was considered]; and he himself [the sins of many bore], and because of their lawless deeds he was delivered up.
Majestic, glorious passage. A mystery-Pardes-Sod-Remez all in one.
Especially when you read this in the OJB-
Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the Zero'a Hashem [Yeshayah 52:10] revealed?
Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a Shoresh (Root, Shoresh Yishai, Moshiach, Yeshayah 11:10, Sanhedrin93b) out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire [Chaggai 2:7] him.
Isa 53:3 He is despised and chadal ishim (rejected by men); a man of sorrows, and acquainted with suffering; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our sufferings, and nasah (carried [Vayikra 16:22; Yeshayah 53:12)] our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, [i.e., like a leper is stricken] smitten of G-d, and afflicted [see verse 8 below].
Isa 53:5 But he was pierced [Yeshayah 51:9; Zecharyah 12:10 Sukkah 52a, Tehillim 22:17 Targum Hashivim] for our transgressions, he was bruised mei'avonoteinu (for our iniquities); the musar (chastisement) (that brought us shalom [Yeshayah 54:10] was upon him [Moshiach]; and at the cost of his (Moshiach's) chaburah (stripes, lacerations) we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own derech (way; see Prov 16:25); and Hashem hath laid on him [Moshiach] the avon (iniquity, the guilt that separates from G-d) of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a seh (lamb; see Shemot 12:3) to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who of his generation declared? For he was cut off [ Dan_9:26 ; Lev_17:10 ] out of Eretz Chayyim [this refers to the mot of Moshiach Ben Dovid, see Isa_53:12 ] mipesha ami (for the transgression of my people [Yisroel]) -nega (plague cf Psa_91:10 ) lamo ([fell] on him [i.e., Moshiach; in light of Psa_11:7 and Job_22:2 we are warranted in saying the suffix is a singular, "him," not "them". Cf Gen_9:26-27 ; Deu_33:2 ; Isa_44:15 ; also compare 1Ch_21:17 ]).
Isa 53:9 And he made his kever (grave) with the resha'im, and with the oisher (rich man; see Mt 27:57-60) bemotayv (in his deaths, intensive plural should be translated singular, death); because he had done no chamas (violence), neither was any mirmah (deceit) in his mouth. T.N. We stray as sheep; we return in Moshiach as children (zera); the Techiyas HaMoshiach (Resurrection of Moshiach) predicted in v. 10 [Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah Scroll says Moshiach "will see the light [of life];" see also the Targum HaShivim]
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering; when Thou shalt make his nefesh an asham offering for sin, he (Moshiach) shall see zera [see Psalm 16 and Yn 1:12 OJBC], He shall prolong his yamim (days) and the chefetz Hashem (pleasure, will of Hashem) shall prosper in his [Moshiach's] hand.
Isa 53:11 He [Hashem] shall see of the travail of his [Moshiach's] nefesh, and shall be satisfied; by knowledge of him [Moshiach] shall Tzadik Avdi ["My Righteous Servant," Moshiach, Zecharyah 3:8, Yirmeyah 23:5; Zecharyah 6:11-12, Ezra 3:8 Yehoshua, Yeshua shmo] justify many (Ro 5:1); for he [Moshiach] shall bear their avon (iniquities).
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his nefesh unto mavet (death); and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he nasah (Lv 16:22, carried) (like the Yom Kippur scapegoat) the sin of many, and made intercession [did the work of a mafgi'a, intercessor] for the transgressors [see Lk 23:34 OJBC].
I believe in PSA @civic -that's my stance, based on the above passage.
J.
Johann
Well-known member
Here's another review on "the book" @civic
3.0 out of 5 stars Challenging but Missing Info
Reviewed in the United States on 8 June 2020
Verified Purchase
I was challenged by this short book, and found the focus compelling but not ultimately convincing. The idea of the culpability of the humans involved in giving Jesus over to death was a helpful read. Often in treatments of atonement theology this aspect is ignored. The earliest apostolic preaching very strongly pointed to the human rejection of Jesus, as the authors point out.
But my biggest critique of the book is their oversimplification of traditional PSA theories. They state that Scripture places full blame of the cross on humans.
This seems to be a side step and over simplifying of the what PSA is even teaching. In my understanding, PSA is trying to underscore the fact that in Scripture atonement is something God does (Lev.17:11, Psalm 65:3). God puts Jesus forward as an atoning sacrifice (Romans 3:25) and it is even God Himself who condemns sin “in the flesh of Jesus.” (Romans 8:3).
Scholars can wrangle about what those very passages are teaching, but I didn’t see much interaction with those statements. What is God’s role besides allowing this to happen? How does the atonement effectively deal with sin? I might have missed the explanations in the book, and would be curious if the writers found time to write a larger book covering the whole teaching on the subject across Scripture if they would do so. I would benefit from it indeed.
I would also have like to have seen interaction with other writers like John Stott who argues persuasively in his book The Cross of Christ (in a chapter called “Who is the Substitute”) that the whole of the Trinity was involved deeply in the work of atonement.
I understand that the authors were trying to clear up God’s involvement in the cross, but they just seemed to throw out different caricatures of PSA. I hope they will write again to further argue from Scripture to clarify all the more what God’s role was in the event that rescues us from sin and death: the cross of Christ.
Do you know who Eithan Bar is?
3.0 out of 5 stars Challenging but Missing Info
Reviewed in the United States on 8 June 2020
Verified Purchase
I was challenged by this short book, and found the focus compelling but not ultimately convincing. The idea of the culpability of the humans involved in giving Jesus over to death was a helpful read. Often in treatments of atonement theology this aspect is ignored. The earliest apostolic preaching very strongly pointed to the human rejection of Jesus, as the authors point out.
But my biggest critique of the book is their oversimplification of traditional PSA theories. They state that Scripture places full blame of the cross on humans.
This seems to be a side step and over simplifying of the what PSA is even teaching. In my understanding, PSA is trying to underscore the fact that in Scripture atonement is something God does (Lev.17:11, Psalm 65:3). God puts Jesus forward as an atoning sacrifice (Romans 3:25) and it is even God Himself who condemns sin “in the flesh of Jesus.” (Romans 8:3).
Scholars can wrangle about what those very passages are teaching, but I didn’t see much interaction with those statements. What is God’s role besides allowing this to happen? How does the atonement effectively deal with sin? I might have missed the explanations in the book, and would be curious if the writers found time to write a larger book covering the whole teaching on the subject across Scripture if they would do so. I would benefit from it indeed.
I would also have like to have seen interaction with other writers like John Stott who argues persuasively in his book The Cross of Christ (in a chapter called “Who is the Substitute”) that the whole of the Trinity was involved deeply in the work of atonement.
I understand that the authors were trying to clear up God’s involvement in the cross, but they just seemed to throw out different caricatures of PSA. I hope they will write again to further argue from Scripture to clarify all the more what God’s role was in the event that rescues us from sin and death: the cross of Christ.
Do you know who Eithan Bar is?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
No it is not. Not even close.
It is a comparison of Unity in the very Character of God vs the condemnation of those who reject the loving sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
There is no comparison.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You keep repeating this....
Will you go line by line and word by word with me through the extant evidence from all sources relative Isa 53?
You post so much at one time in response that I don't believe there is anything much but "muddy water" to be found.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
He knows it better than he is willing to come right out and admit.
We "hold onto" things in our lives because they're essential to our doctrine. It is shocking thing to realize that the things you've believed for so many years are actually wrong.
I've meet very few that will actually change. I known pastors that said
"you're right, but I can't tell this to my church. It will destroy it"......
Burdock
Member
Ya think?
The average person has 50,000 to 70,000 thoughts per day, which equates to 35 to 48 thoughts per minute. Approximately 95 percent of our thoughts today are the same thoughts we thought yesterday. To make matter worse, about 80 percent of those habitual thoughts are negative ones. Tens of thousands of negative thoughts cycle through our minds day after day after day, poisoning our attitudes and our outlooks, one by one.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
That's some weird wiggy mojo you got going on there.
Johann
Well-known member
Not necessary-Isaiah 53 says it all-what saddens me is too much philosophizing-that is "muddying the water"
Rom 3:4 But God is true and every man a liar, as it is written: That thou mayest be justified in thy words and mayest overcome when thou art judged.
Let God be found true (ginesthō ho theos alēthēs). “Let God continue to be true” (present middle imperative).
But every man a liar (pās de anthrōpos pseustēs). The contrast in de really means, “though every man be found a liar.” Cf. Psa_116:12.
As it is written (kathōs gegraptai). Psa_51:6.
That thou mightest be justified (hopōs an dikaiōthēis). Hopōs rather than the common hina for purpose and an with the first aorist passive subjunctive of dikaioō. Used of God this verb here has to mean “declared righteous,” not “made righteous.”
Mightest prevail (nikēseis). Future active indicative with hopōs of nikaō, to win a victory, though B L have nikēsēis (first aorist active subjunctive, the usual construction).
When thou comest into judgement (en tōi krinesthai se). “In the being judged as to thee” (present passive infinitive or, if taken as middle, “in the entering upon trial as to thee”). Common construction in the lxx from the Hebrew infinitive construct.
RWP.
