The Nature of God in the Atonement

civic said:
Another ad hominem attack , try sticking to the argument not the person
Click to expand...
The biblical argument is well presented, flies in the face of the caricature you hold out.

J.
 
Johann said:
Your understanding of "double imputation" seems to be rooted in a Calvinistic framework, while my understanding is based on a scriptural perspective, as I will demonstrate.

First, your statement "that right there is double imputation" misunderstands the biblical doctrine:

Double imputation refers to two distinct actions: (1) the imputation (Hebrew: חָשַׁב ḥāshav, "to reckon, credit"; see Genesis 15:6) of human sin to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) and (2) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers (Romans 4:5-6; Philippians 3:9). That's how I see "double imputation" as per Scripture.
Click to expand...
Your first problem is: You already noted that the verse may be speaking of a sin offering. I have posted multiple verses where that translation occurs in both the Hebrew and the Greek

PSA however roots double imputation in a Calvinist framework.

Those who Christ was offered for receive his righteousness, and Christ receives and has to pay for their sins.

Think about it. This requires a limited atonement a Calvinist doctrine.

How can men for whom Christ paid for their sins be sent to Hell or be punished for those sins. It would be a double payment.
 
TomL said:
PSA however roots double imputation in a Calvinist framework.
Click to expand...
And I have made it clear how I see double imputation in Scripture Tom.

Double imputation refers to two distinct actions: (1) the imputation (Hebrew: חָשַׁב ḥāshav, "to reckon, credit"; see Genesis 15:6) of human sin to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) and (2) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers (Romans 4:5-6; Philippians 3:9).

But for your sake I'll leave out double imputation but not the penal language as it stands written in Scripture.

And no-PSA has no roots in Calvinism- but a thorough biblical concept rooted IN Scripture.

Do you deny this @TomL? Yes, or no?


Isaiah 53 — "made sin" concept — Hebrew Verbs
In Isaiah 53, the concept that relates to "becoming sin" is primarily found in two key Hebrew verbs:

Isaiah 53:6 —

Text: וַֽיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ

Transliteration: vayhwh hipgîaʿ bô ʾet ʿavon kullanu

Translation: "and YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Hebrew Verb: הִפְגִּיעַ (hipgîaʿ) — root פָּגַע (pāgaʿ)

Morphology: Hiphil (causative) perfect 3rd masculine singular

Meaning: In the hiphil stem, pāgaʿ can mean "to cause to meet," "to intercede," "to burden," or even "to strike upon."

Force: YHWH caused the iniquity of all to strike against or encounter Him; this sets the background for substitution.

Isaiah 53:10 —

Text: וַֽיהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי

Transliteration: vayhwh ḥafeṣ dakkəʾô heḥĕlî

Translation: "Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief."

Hebrew Verbs:

דַּכְּאוֹ (dakkəʾô) — root דָּכָא (dākāʾ)

Morphology: Piel infinitive construct + 3rd masculine singular suffix ("to crush him")

Meaning: "to crush, to break" (violent injury; intensive action in Piel).

הֶחֱלִי (heḥĕlî) — root חָלָה (ḥālāh)

Morphology: Hiphil perfect 3rd masculine singular ("He caused to be sick").

Meaning: "to cause illness, to wound, to weaken."

Thus, Isaiah 53 uses the language of causing to bear guilt, crushing, and causing sickness - heavy judicial and penal imagery - not the literal "becoming sin" as substance but bearing sin as guilt or penalty.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or do you affirm this as part of Scripture? You have a Logos Bible Software, or go to the NET, you do word studies and there is NOTHING wrong with that, I concentrate on grammar and morphology and there's NOTHING wrong with it.

J.
 
TomL said:
PSA however roots double imputation in a Calvinist framework.
Click to expand...
And I have made it clear how I see double imputation in Scripture Tom.

Double imputation refers to two distinct actions: (1) the imputation (Hebrew: חָשַׁב ḥāshav, "to reckon, credit"; see Genesis 15:6) of human sin to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) and (2) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers (Romans 4:5-6; Philippians 3:9).

But for your sake I'll leave out double imputation but not the penal language as it stands written in Scripture.

And no-PSA has no roots in Calvinism- but a thorough biblical concept rooted IN Scripture.

Do you deny this @TomL? Yes, or no?


Isaiah 53 — "made sin" concept — Hebrew Verbs
In Isaiah 53, the concept that relates to "becoming sin" is primarily found in two key Hebrew verbs:

Isaiah 53:6 —

Text: וַֽיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ

Transliteration: vayhwh hipgîaʿ bô ʾet ʿavon kullanu

Translation: "and YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Hebrew Verb: הִפְגִּיעַ (hipgîaʿ) — root פָּגַע (pāgaʿ)

Morphology: Hiphil (causative) perfect 3rd masculine singular

Meaning: In the hiphil stem, pāgaʿ can mean "to cause to meet," "to intercede," "to burden," or even "to strike upon."

Force: YHWH caused the iniquity of all to strike against or encounter Him; this sets the background for substitution.

Isaiah 53:10 —

Text: וַֽיהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי

Transliteration: vayhwh ḥafeṣ dakkəʾô heḥĕlî

Translation: "Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief."

Hebrew Verbs:

דַּכְּאוֹ (dakkəʾô) — root דָּכָא (dākāʾ)

Morphology: Piel infinitive construct + 3rd masculine singular suffix ("to crush him")

Meaning: "to crush, to break" (violent injury; intensive action in Piel).

הֶחֱלִי (heḥĕlî) — root חָלָה (ḥālāh)

Morphology: Hiphil perfect 3rd masculine singular ("He caused to be sick").

Meaning: "to cause illness, to wound, to weaken."

Thus, Isaiah 53 uses the language of causing to bear guilt, crushing, and causing sickness - heavy judicial and penal imagery - not the literal "becoming sin" as substance but bearing sin as guilt or penalty.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or do you affirm this as part of Scripture? You have a Logos Bible Software, or go to the NET, you do word studies and there is NOTHING wrong with that, I concentrate on grammar and morphology and there's NOTHING wrong with it.

J.
 
TomL said:
PSA however roots double imputation in a Calvinist framework.
Click to expand...
And I have made it clear how I see double imputation in Scripture Tom.

Double imputation refers to two distinct actions: (1) the imputation (Hebrew: חָשַׁב ḥāshav, "to reckon, credit"; see Genesis 15:6) of human sin to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) and (2) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers (Romans 4:5-6; Philippians 3:9).

But for your sake I'll leave out double imputation but not the penal language as it stands written in Scripture.

And no-PSA has no roots in Calvinism- but a thorough biblical concept rooted IN Scripture.

Do you deny this @TomL? Yes, or no?


Isaiah 53 — "made sin" concept — Hebrew Verbs
In Isaiah 53, the concept that relates to "becoming sin" is primarily found in two key Hebrew verbs:

Isaiah 53:6 —

Text: וַֽיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ

Transliteration: vayhwh hipgîaʿ bô ʾet ʿavon kullanu

Translation: "and YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Hebrew Verb: הִפְגִּיעַ (hipgîaʿ) — root פָּגַע (pāgaʿ)

Morphology: Hiphil (causative) perfect 3rd masculine singular

Meaning: In the hiphil stem, pāgaʿ can mean "to cause to meet," "to intercede," "to burden," or even "to strike upon."

Force: YHWH caused the iniquity of all to strike against or encounter Him; this sets the background for substitution.

Isaiah 53:10 —

Text: וַֽיהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי

Transliteration: vayhwh ḥafeṣ dakkəʾô heḥĕlî

Translation: "Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief."

Hebrew Verbs:

דַּכְּאוֹ (dakkəʾô) — root דָּכָא (dākāʾ)

Morphology: Piel infinitive construct + 3rd masculine singular suffix ("to crush him")

Meaning: "to crush, to break" (violent injury; intensive action in Piel).

הֶחֱלִי (heḥĕlî) — root חָלָה (ḥālāh)

Morphology: Hiphil perfect 3rd masculine singular ("He caused to be sick").

Meaning: "to cause illness, to wound, to weaken."

Thus, Isaiah 53 uses the language of causing to bear guilt, crushing, and causing sickness - heavy judicial and penal imagery - not the literal "becoming sin" as substance but bearing sin as guilt or penalty.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or do you affirm this as part of Scripture? You have a Logos Bible Software, or go to the NET, you do word studies and there is NOTHING wrong with that, I concentrate on grammar and morphology and there's NOTHING wrong with it.

J.
 
TomL said:
Little to do with the difficulties created within the Godhead. PSA is simply not the only atonement theory

Ideas such as Christ was pure no more, was damned by the Father, and became anathema are simply unbiblical. Further the idea Christ was propitiating the Father in the atonement, that the Father could not forgive and had to be appeased by pouring out his wrath upon Christ I also do not see as biblical
Click to expand...

Christ bore our sins in His own body and you still think a single sin damns humanity?

Some of those other "theories" have most to do with the merits of Eternal Life.
 
praise_yeshua said:
Christ bore our sins in His own body and you still think a single sin damns humanity?

Some of those other "theories" have most to do with the merits of Eternal Life.
Click to expand...
I'm going to give this a "like"--tentatively

J.
 
praise_yeshua said:
Christ bore our sins in His own body and you still think a single sin damns humanity?

Some of those other "theories" have most to do with the merits of Eternal Life.
Click to expand...
Um regarding established atonement theories they are not about the merits of eternal life.

As i stated

Ideas such as Christ was pure no more, was damned by the Father, and became anathema are simply unbiblical. Further the idea Christ was propitiating the Father in the atonement, that the Father could not forgive and had to be appeased by pouring out his wrath upon Christ I also do not see as biblical
Click to expand...

Unless a man believes in Christ, he will be damned . Christ's death did not remove his sin.
 
TomL said:
Um regarding established atonement theories they are not about the merits of eternal life.
Click to expand...

Sure they are.

Care to debate the topic? How do you value eternal life?

We can start with

Gen 3:23 And God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever—

Immortality only exists in the value of the Godhead/Holy Trinity. To be equal with God is undeniable merit. There is merit to be found in Eternal Life.

TomL said:
Unless a man believes in Christ, he will be damned . Christ's death did not remove his sin.
Click to expand...

Ah. Now we are getting somewhere.......

Man apart from God doesn't have Eternal Life. You believe sin is the single reason that God is separated from man. I've said this before and I'll repeat myself again....

Forgiveness of sin doesn't establish any sense of a meaningful relationship with another. I can forgive you or you can forgive me, yet we may never be able to get along. Your mind isn't my mind. My mind isn't your mind.

An independent mind is the issue here.
 
Johann said:
I'm going to give this a "like"--tentatively

J.
Click to expand...

The book of proverbs likens sin to a "fire". Fire can be managed or it can get completely out of control.

Sin had become so rampant after the death of Adam that all mankind only thought of evil continually. This world has basically always been a boundary from man always having access to God. Which was never God intent for His creation. Man was taken from the dust/ashes of the desert beyond the garden. Man has always been weak and incapable of pleasing God absent God abiding presence. Man has been endless challenged throughout their history to be "mindful" of God. Those who forget God are worthy of damnation. Rejecting Jesus Christ merits the damnation of God.
 
praise_yeshua said:
The book of proverbs likens sin to a "fire". Fire can be managed or it can get completely out of control.

Sin had become so rampant after the death of Adam that all mankind only thought of evil continually. This world has basically always been a boundary from man always having access to God. Which was never God intent for His creation. Man was taken from the dust/ashes of the desert beyond the garden. Man has always been weak and incapable of pleasing God absent God abiding presence. Man has been endless challenged throughout their history to be "mindful" of God. Those who forget God are worthy of damnation. Rejecting Jesus Christ merits the damnation of God.
Click to expand...
@praise_yeshua

Didn’t you know? Speak of God’s wrath, and persecution is guaranteed.

J.
 
Johann said:
@praise_yeshua

Didn’t you know? Speak of God’s wrath, and persecution is guaranteed.

J.
Click to expand...

I see damnation for those who reject Christ. I do not see damnation established in the "original sin" of Adam. I've long held the belief that the Atonement both justifies and damns the life of humanity.

There is no ignoring the words of

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I don't believe anyone here would deny this. Well... maybe some of the Universalist/Unitarians.

It is very important in how one properly construct this doctrine. PSA does give the sense that it is sin that damns when it is actually the rejection of Jesus Christ that established the worthiness of the innocent to damnation.
 
praise_yeshua said:
I see damnation for those who reject Christ. I do not see damnation established in the "original sin" of Adam. I've long held the belief that the Atonement both justifies and damns the life of humanity.

There is no ignoring the words of

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I don't believe anyone here would deny this. Well... maybe some of the Universalist/Unitarians.

It is very important in how one properly construct this doctrine. PSA does give the sense that it is sin that damns when it is actually the rejection of Jesus Christ that established the worthiness of the innocent to damnation.
Click to expand...
Since I’m being compelled-by the "Sanhedrin and the power that be", a mere pretender to authority-not to reference the Tanakh or the Masoretic Text, explain Isaiah 53 solely from the Septuagint (LXX) and unfold what truly occurred on the Cross.

J.
 
Johann said:
Since I’m being compelled-by the "Sanhedrin and the power that be", a mere pretender to authority-not to reference the Tanakh or the Masoretic Text, explain Isaiah 53 solely from the Septuagint (LXX) and unfold what truly occurred on the Cross.

J.
Click to expand...
FYI the N.T. interprets the OT when its quoted by Jesus and the Apostles.

Your WRATH verses in the OT from Isaiah 53 are missing in the N.T.

I demonstrated that in my OP in this thread.

There is no penal aspect/ language Isaiah used that is carried over in the N.T. but that of substitution. Isaiah 53:4- WE (not God) considered Him punished by God. The following NT passages quote Isaiah 53: Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 15:27-32; John 12:37-41; Luke 22:35-38; Acts 8:26-35; Romans 10:11-21; and 1 Peter 2:19-25. Not one of them uses any penal language where PSA gets its doctrine from in Isaiah 53 in the New Testament.

1-Matthew 8:17 Carried our diseases (Isaiah 53:4)

2-Mark 15:28 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

3-Luke 22:37 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

4-John 12:38 Who has believed our report? (Isaiah 53:1)

5-Acts 8:32 A lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7)

6-Romans 10:16 Who has believed our report? (Isaiah 53:1)

7-1Peter 2:22 He committed no sin (Isaiah 53:9)

8-1Peter 2:24 By his stripes you were healed (Isaiah 53:5)

next

conclusion: PSA has no basis in the N.T- the New Covenant.

hope this helps !!!
 
Johann said:
Since I’m being compelled-by the "Sanhedrin and the power that be", a mere pretender to authority-not to reference the Tanakh or the Masoretic Text, explain Isaiah 53 solely from the Septuagint (LXX) and unfold what truly occurred on the Cross.

J.
Click to expand...

No need for such drama....

You tell me your #1 issue from Isaiah 53 relative to how you discern God's wraith upon Messiah and I'll work with you on this.
 

Similar threads

civic
Ephesians 2:8 salvation is the gift
13 14 15
Replies
281
Views
2K
Red Baker
R
jeremiah1five
The Love of God and the Mark of the Beast
Replies
13
Views
83
armylngst
A
Dizerner
My full defense of PSA
8 9 10
Replies
196
Views
2K
Eternally-Grateful
E
civic
The Eternal Son
29 30 31
Replies
608
Views
3K
TibiasDad
TibiasDad
civic
Warnings by Reformers using ChatGPT
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
1K
ProDeo
P
Back
Top Bottom