penal substitution verses Christus Victor

His student said:

Actually penal substitution is not a theory at all. It is a scripture based fact.

It did not "come about" at the reformation. It was simply expounded during that time and after from what was taught by Isaiah almost 8 centuries before Christ even lived.

"...............Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors."

Click to expand...

You do realize that you're interpreting that passage, correct? Just because you interpret it the way the Reformers did, doesn't mean it's correct. You may also want to read the passage in the Septuagint. It reads differently.

Butch5 said:

Do you have any evidence? For the first thousand years the church didn't hold to Penal substitution. I don't mind having the discussion but you need to get your facts correct.

Click to expand...

Actually I provided it here. I assumed that you were reading along.

His student said:

It did not "come about" at the reformation [or Anselm]. It was simply expounded during that time and after from what was taught by Isaiah almost 8 centuries before Christ even lived.

"...............Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors."

Click to expand...

Butch5 said:

You do realize that you're interpreting that passage, correct? Just because you interpret it the way the Reformers did, doesn't mean it's correct.

Click to expand...

There is only one way you can "interpret" statements like "
He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

and

"For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due"

and

"He will bear their iniquities"


and

"He Himself bore the sin of many"

His student said:

Actually I provided it here. I assumed that you were reading along.

Click to expand...

You're interpretation of a passage isn't evidence. We're talking about history, that requires historical evidence.

Butch5 said:

You're interpretation of a passage isn't evidence. We're talking about history, that requires historical evidence.

Click to expand...

Like I said, there's only one way you can interpret what is written in Isaiah.

Isaiah is a real "historical" character and a prophet of God. The "evidence" you require is written in your bible.

Where's your faith man?
"... faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

But that doesn't mean that there are no other truths in the Word of God concerning the nature of the atonement. But, as I see it, if you reject what is obviously true concerning penal substitution, there is probably a personal agenda at play.

I don't know what your agenda is. But penal substitution is pure truth right from God's Word.

GodsGrace101 said:

"Theory" does not mean it's not so.

Click to expand...

I receive that correction.

GodsGrace101 said:

It could be idea, or thoughts, or you could replace it with many words.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that means.

GodsGrace101 said:

Anything you can say about the atonement will be correct because there are at least 7 "theories" that I can think of, and all biblical ideas are included within all of them.

Click to expand...

There certainly could be other aspects of the atonement which are true just as the penal substitution theory is definitely true.

It doesn't logically follow that then "anything you can say about the atonement will be correct".

GodsGrace101 said:

The above is partly the Substitution Theory.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 53 is pretty much straight substitution theory.

His student said:

Like I said, there's only one way you can interpret what is written by Isaiah.

Isaiah is a real "historical" character and a prophet of God. The "evidence" is written in your bible.

I don't know what your agenda is. But penal substitution is pure truth right from God's Word.

Click to expand...

If you look at church history you'll find that the Septuagint reads differently and it is older than the Masoretic text that you quoted. You'll also find that the church didn't teach Penal substitution. You'll also find that Penal substitution is actually the third proposed model of the atonement.

I often wonder why people oppose others when they don't have their facts straight. It doesn't make one look good. Yes, Isaiah is a historical character. However, Isaiah live long before Christ came, thus he has no bearing on the atonement. His prophesies may, but he doesn't. We're talking about two different models of the atonement. One of them was taught by the early Christians, the other wasn't. That is a historical fact. It can be verified by doing research. Your interpretation of a passage of Scripture does not change that historical fact.

To say the passage can only be understood one way, is naive at best. You're interpreting a passage of Scripture that was written about 3000 years ago, by a man who lived in a completely different culture, spoke a completely different language, lived in a completely different geopolitical environment, that was interpreted by the translator who translated it into the English you're reading. To say there's only one way to interpret it is naive. As I said, read the Septuagint and you'll see there is another way to understand it.

His student said:

I receive that correction.

I'm not sure what that means.

There certainly could be other aspects of the atonement which are true just as the penal substitution theory is definitely true.

It doesn't logically follow that then "anything you can say about the atonement will be correct".

Isaiah 53 is pretty much straight substitution theory.

Click to expand...

Hi HS,
Since you accept the correction it means that you should understand that those words I used was just a way to explain what I meant by "theory". They're of no importance to the discussion.

The wrath of God is at times spoken of in the bible, in the O.T. When Jesus revealed God to us, He did not reveal a wrathful God, but a loving God.

The Penal Substitution Theory and the Replacement Theory are very similar. I wonder if you ever saw that Link I had posted...

The reason I don't like the Penal ST too much is that it makes God out to be a wrathful god lusting for blood in order to be quenched.

The Substitutionary Theory has all the same ideas as the PST, BUT it says that God had to receive satisfaction because our sin against Him was so great and only God can satisfy God...which is why Jesus had to be both Man and God...it was Man satisfying God.

If you like the PST, that's fine...no one is any better than another.

Did you see this link?

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

His student said:

I receive that correction.

I'm not sure what that means.

There certainly could be other aspects of the atonement which are true just as the penal substitution theory is definitely true.

It doesn't logically follow that then "anything you can say about the atonement will be correct".

Isaiah 53 is pretty much straight substitution theory.

Click to expand...

P.S.

You said:
"It doesn't logically follow that then "anything you can say about the atonement will be correct".

Actually, that's not true.
One CAN say anything pertaining to the atonement IF it is scriptural. Theologians have come up with different theories that ARE scriptural.

Butch5 said:

If you look at church history you'll find that the Septuagint reads differently and it is older than the Masoretic text that you quoted..........As I said, read the Septuagint and you'll see there is another way to understand it.

Click to expand...

“He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.”

That’s the Septuagint and it’s pure penal substitution.

Butch5 said:

You'll also find that the church didn't teach Penal substitution.

Click to expand...

Good luck with building solid doctrine on what the "church" of the dark ages did or didn't believe in or teach.

I also find that the "church" taught transubstantiation and many wrong Mary related doctrines. I also find the blasphemous mass being celbrated in the "church". I also find that the "church" had developed doctrines that presented people with a false priesthood and a "Vicar" of Christ. I also find that the simple gospel was all but hidden from the people by the "church" and that the "church martyred those who dared teach it.

What's your point?

Butch5 said:

saiah live long before Christ came, thus he has no bearing on the atonement. His prophesies may, but he doesn't.

Click to expand...

Whatever that means.

Butch5 said:

We're talking about two different models of the atonement. One of them was taught by the early Christians, the other wasn't. That is a historical fact. It can be verified by doing research.

Click to expand...

Again - what's your point?

Are you really going to tell me that the things taught or not taught by the so called "church" in the dark ages determine what is and what is not correct exegesis of Isaiah 53?

Butch5 said:

Your interpretation of a passage of Scripture does not change that historical fact.

Click to expand...

Septuagint or the King James - there's no escaping penal substitution in Isaiah 53.

Butch5 said:

To say the passage can only be understood one way, is naive at best.

Click to expand...

Where do you see Christus Victor outweighing substitution in Isaiah 53?

That's not to say that there may not be some merit to CV as well from some passages in the scriptures which support it. But support for it certainly doesn't negate the obvious validity of substitution.

53 Vs. 12 (Septuagint version) - is the only place in Isaiah 53 that might be used to support CV. Even there the teaching of P.S. out weights CV.

"Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities."

GodsGrace101 said:

When Jesus revealed God to us, He did not reveal a wrathful God, but a loving God.

Click to expand...

I will disagree with you there as well.
Revelation 6:16 “Calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb,”

Revelation 14:10 “He also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.”

Revelation 19:15 “From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.”

Isaiah 63:1-6 "Who is this who comes from Edom,
With garments of glowing colors from Bozrah,
This One who is majestic in His apparel,
Marching in the greatness of His strength?
“It is I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save.”
Why is Your apparel red,
And Your garments like the one who treads in the wine press?
“I have trodden the wine trough alone,
And from the peoples there was no man with Me.
I also trod them in My anger
And trampled them in My wrath;
And their lifeblood is sprinkled on My garments,
And I stained all My raiment.
“For the day of vengeance was in My heart,
And My year of redemption has come.
“I looked, and there was no one to help,
And I was astonished and there was no one to uphold;
So My own arm brought salvation to Me,
And My wrath upheld Me.
“I trod down the peoples in My anger
And made them drunk in My wrath,
And I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”

GodsGrace101 said:

I wonder if you ever saw that Link I had posted...

Click to expand...

Yes.

GodsGrace101 said:

The reason I don't like the Penal ST too much is that it makes God out to be a wrathful god lusting for blood in order to be quenched.

Click to expand...

The wrath of God is amply demonstrated in the N.T. writings and in the words of Jesus.

I can't say the same for any "lusting for blood" on God's part.

GodsGrace101 said:

Did you see this link?
7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

Click to expand...

Yes - thank you.

GodsGrace101 said:

One CAN say anything pertaining to the atonement IF it is scriptural. Theologians have come up with different theories that ARE scriptural.

Click to expand...

Yes - But that's not the way you originally worded it which wording I took exception to.

P.S. - I have no problem with the idea that there is some truth to a number of theories about the atonement.

What I'm have a problem with is the idea that penal substitution isn't one of them.

His student said:

“He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.”

That’s the Septuagint and it’s pure penal substitution.

Good luck with building solid doctrine on what the "church" of the dark ages did or didn't believe in or teach.

I also find that the "church" taught transubstantiation and many wrong Mary related doctrines. I also find the blasphemous mass being celbrated in the "church". I also find that the "church" had developed doctrines that presented people with a false priesthood and a "Vicar" of Christ. I also find that the simple gospel was all but hidden from the people by the "church" and that the "church martyred those who dared teach it.

What's your point?
Whatever that means.

Again - what's your point?

Are you really going to tell me that the things taught or not taught by the so called "church" in the dark ages determine what is and what is not correct exegesis of Isaiah 53?

Septuagint or the King James - there's no escaping penal substitution in Isaiah 53.

Where do you see Christus Victor outweighing substitution in Isaiah 53?

That's not to say that there may not be some merit to CV as well from some passages in the scriptures which support it. But support for it certainly doesn't negate the obvious validity of substitution.

53 Vs. 12 (Septuagint version) - is the only place in Isaiah 53 that might be used to support CV. Even there the teaching of P.S. out weights CV.

"Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities."

Click to expand...

Do you understand what the Penal Atonement doctrine is? The doctrine has as it's premise the idea that Christ died to satisfy the wrath of God. It also holds that He paid a sin debt to God for mankind. Now, you're arguing that Isaiah 53 shows Penal Atonement. However, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that you're interpreting the passage. If Isaiah 53 is showing Penal Atonement then that idea must be put forward in Scripture. Show me anywhere in Scripture that says Christ's death satisfied the wrath of God. You won't be able to, because it's not there. Also, this idea that Christ paid a sin debt to God isn't there either. Since the premise can't be found in Scripture, the argument for Penal Atonement is an idea formed outside of the Scriptures and is being forced on them. The premise of the argument is flawed.

Regarding the church, by pointing out the problems in the Catholic church you just undermine your own argument. If the church in the dark ages had that much wrong, how much more does today's church have wrong being hundreds of years later? A simple look at the plethora of denominations will quickly show how much the modern church has wrong. However, I wasn't talking about the Catholic Church. I was talking about the early church. Those who were taught by Jesus and the apostles. They didn't hold to the idea of Penal Atonement. Since they didn't hold to it it's pretty clear that the apostles didn't teach it. Unless you're going to claim that the entirety of those taught by the apostles quickly abandoned what they were taught. The historical evidence shows that the early Christians didn't hold to Penal substitution. Thus, this shows that you reading of Isaiah 53 as Penal Atonement is in error.

Butch5 said:

Do you understand what the Penal Atonement doctrine is?

Click to expand...

Yes - that,
"He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him........For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due" ----just as Isaiah 53 clearly says.

Butch5 said:

The premise of the argument is flawed.

Click to expand...

Then the flaw was presented by the Holy Spirit 8 centuries before the death of Christ and not later by men.

Butch5 said:

If the church in the dark ages had that much wrong, how much more does today's church have wrong being hundreds of years later?

Click to expand...

You have heard of the Reformation, right?

Butch5 said:

A simple look at the plethora of denominations will quickly show how much the modern church has wrong.

Click to expand...

Might that not also include your rejection of penal substitution? I think so.

Butch5 said:

I was talking about the early church. Those who were taught by Jesus and the apostles. They didn't hold to the idea of Penal Atonement. Since they didn't hold to it it's pretty clear that the apostles didn't teach it.

Click to expand...

Non sense.
The church doesn't get much "earlier" than Paul.

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” Gal. 3:13

“God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood.” Rom. 3:25

Butch5 said:

The historical evidence shows that the early Christians didn't hold to Penal substitution.

Click to expand...

Non sense - not that it would matter.

While the theory obviously wasn't fully developed until later by the likes of Anselm, Luther, and Calvin - it was stated by church fathers as varied as Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Chrysostom, Hilary, Gregory, John of Damascus, Athanasius, and Eusebius of Caesarea (the so-called "father of church history").

Of course the statements in scripture such as by Isiah, John, Paul and Peter are what really matter.

Butch5 said:

Thus, this shows that you reading of Isaiah 53 as Penal Atonement is in error.

Click to expand...

There's only one way to read the words of Isaiah.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.


We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all." (53:5–6)

Like most of the evangelical church, I believe in that sinners are due eternal punishment for their sins just as the Lord taught. I don't particularly like that fact. But it is a fact none the less.

Isaiah 53:8 says that, “… He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due …”

If that translation is accurate, it sounds like Jesus definitely got what was due us - what we deserved. Jesus clearly got what we deserved instead of us getting what we deserved.

I see why you fight so hard against this "interpretation" of Isaiah.

That would clearly teach the biblical truth that Jesus died a Substitutionary Death.

But, if that is not definite enough, Isaiah 53:6 is. It says, “the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”

Our sins were on Jesus instead of on us. That's exactly what we mean when we say that He was our substitution.

He took upon Himself the iniquity of us all in order to bear punishment for us. We were crucified with Christ and now stand justified before God only because He did so.

Look - I get it.

The view you hold concerning Annihilationism demands that you reject the penal substitution theory of the atonement.

But the rest of us have no such agenda or bias.

His student said:

Yes - that,
"He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him........For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due" ----just as Isaiah 53 clearly says.

Click to expand...

What it doesn't say is that this was a payment to God or that it satisfied God's wrath. Two of the premises required by your doctrine. Neither of which is found in Scripture. Since there is nothing in Scripture that says that Christ's death satisfied the wrath of God, the argument is bogus. You can continue to try to impose it on Scripture, but it's simply not there. This is a clear indication that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what Isaiah is referring to.

Non sense.
The church doesn't get much "earlier" than Paul.

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” Gal. 3:13

“God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood.” Rom. 3:25

Click to expand...

Again, your misunderstanding of Scripture is not evidence

Non sense - not that it would matter.

Click to expand...

While the theory obviously wasn't fully developed until later by the likes of Anselm, Luther, and Calvin - it was stated by church fathers as varied as Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Chrysostom, Hilary, Gregory, John of Damascus, Athanasius, and Eusebius of Caesarea (the so-called "father of church history").

Of course the statements in scripture such as by Isiah, John, Paul and Peter are what really matter.

Click to expand...

There's the problem, "while the theory obviously wasn't fully developed until later". That's because it wasn't there. It was created later. It wasn't taught in the early church. You simply can't change that historical fact.

There's only one way to read the words of Isaiah.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.


We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all." (53:5–6)

Click to expand...

To say there's only one way to read it is naive at best. Until you can show something in Scripture that says that Christ's death was payment to God for sins or that it appeased the wrath of God, All you're doing is presenting speculation. You can give your interpretation all of the passages you want to. Without showing it was an appeasement of God's wrath or a payment to God for sins they're just your opinion. And we haven't even begun with all of the contradictions the doctrine creates with Scripture.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Butch5 said:

This is a clear indication that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what Isaiah is referring to.

Click to expand...

Look - go pedal your heresies on someone else.

Most of us believe that we are sinners and that the punishment due our sin is the eternal wrath of God.

You do not.

Acceptance of Christ as "Savior" assumes that you accept that there is something to be "saved" from.

You need to repent and believe what the scriptures teach about not only what Jesus did for us - but about your condition before God.

If you will repent of your unbelief concerning those things - you can then receive forgiveness for your sins, be born again, and be found justified before God.

I certainly hope I'm wrong about you. But it doesn't appear that you have exercised saving and justifying faith in the gospel.

His student said:

Look - go pedal your heresies on someone else.

Most of us believe that we are sinners and that the punishment due our sin is the eternal wrath of God.

You do not.

Acceptance of Christ as "Savior" assumes that you accept that there is something to be "saved" from.

You need to repent and believe what the scriptures teach about not only what Jesus did for us - but about your condition before God.

If you will repent of your unbelief concerning those things - you can then receive forgiveness for your sins, be born again, and be found justified before God.

I certainly hope I'm wrong about you. But it doesn't appear that you have exercised saving and justifying faith in the gospel.

Click to expand...

Or you could just admit that there is nothing in Scripture that says Christ's death satisfied the wrath of God, nor is there anything that says His death was a payment to God. But, if you did that you'd have to change your doctrine and we surely can't have that.

Butch5 said:

Or you could just admit that there is nothing in Scripture that says Christ's death satisfied the wrath of God, nor is there anything that says His death was a payment to God. But, if you did that you'd have to change your doctrine and we surely can't have that.

Click to expand...

"Surely He has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed Him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced for our transgressions;
He was crushed for our iniquities;
upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with His wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on Him
the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:4-6 ESV

"He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted Him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. But He was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and by His bruises we were healed. All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave Him up for our sins." Isaiah 53:4-6 Septuagint

So ---- When He bore our griefs and sorrows and when He was wounded, smitten and afflicted by God so that His chastisement brought us peace and when He was crushed and pierced for our transgressions -- you know, when God laid our iniquity on Him -- God's wrath against us was not satisfied?

If you can't see that as a substitutionary atonement and a propitiation on our behalf -
it seems to me that, as I suspected, you do not have the Holy Spirit to lead you into truth. You might as well turn in your Bible.

Or you could repent and identify with the rest of us as one of the sinners mentioned in this passage and receive Jesus as your own personal Savior.

You know? - I'd love to see every one who names the name of Jesus in any way, even if he has embraced wrong doctrine in this life, in Heaven when we cross over. That includes Popes, Mormons, those who teach a works salvation and those, like yourself, who do not see that Jesus bore their sins at Calvary.

But as much as I hope that it will be the case - I just have my doubts.

His student said:

"Surely He has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed Him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced for our transgressions;
He was crushed for our iniquities;
upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with His wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on Him
the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:4-6 ESV

"He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted Him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. But He was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and by His bruises we were healed. All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave Him up for our sins." Isaiah 53:4-6 Septuagint

So ---- When He bore our griefs and sorrows and when He was wounded, smitten and afflicted by God so that His chastisement brought us peace and when He was crushed and pierced for our transgressions -- you know, when God laid our iniquity on Him -- God's wrath against us was not satisfied?

Click to expand...

You're creating a straw man. Notice the Septuagint doesn't say He was smitten of God. It reads differently. If you do the research you'll find that the Septuagint is the Bible that Jesus and the apostles used. However, even the Masoretic text doesn't say that His death appeased the wrath of God. It just says He was smitten of God. Again, you're inserting your assumptions.

Notice the difference between the two versions

Masoretic text -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. (Isa. 53:6 KJV)

LXX -6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins (Isa. 53:6 LXA)

There's a big difference there. What does it mean that the Lord gave Him up for our sins? Remember, the LXX is what Jesus and the apostles used as their Bible.

If you can't see that as a substitutionary atonement and a propitiation on our behalf -
it seems to me that, as I suspected, you do not have the Holy Spirit to lead you into truth. You might as well turn in your Bible.

Or you could repent and identify with the rest of us as one of the sinners mentioned in this passage and receive Jesus as your own personal Savior.

You know? - I'd love to see every one who names the name of Jesus in any way, even if he has embraced wrong doctrine in this life, in Heaven when we cross over. That includes Popes, Mormons, those who teach a works salvation and those, like yourself, who do not see that Jesus bore their sins at Calvary.

But as much as I hope that it will be the case - I just have my doubts.

Click to expand...

You're creating a straw man again. The issue isn't substituionary atonement, there's not argument there. The issue is penal atonement.

You still haven't established the premise of argument.

His student said:

Most of us believe that we are sinners and that the punishment due our sin is the eternal wrath of God.

Click to expand...

Back up the train, not every believes like you. The problem with that thinking is it makes God a very bad guy that is always mad instead of a compassionate God who wants all to come to Him (1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9) and is sadden to see sinners die (Ezekiel 33:11). As is in our Liturgy when we get the Blessing:

God loves you.
God has forgiven you.
God is not angry at you.
And God will never leave you, nor forsake you.

So not everyone believes in a wrathful God ready to destroy us at a moments notice so Christ had to die to appease Him. I believe the recapitulation theory of the atonement basically Christ succeeded where Adam failed.

Butch5 said:

even the Masoretic text doesn't say that His death appeased the wrath of God. It just says He was smitten of God. Again, you're inserting your assumptions.

Click to expand...

OK. My bad perhaps.

God may have smote Jesus because He was really happy with Him because of His perfect obedience. I guess that's one way to look at it.

Tutorman said:

Back up the train, not every believes like you.

Click to expand...

After spending a couple of years in this forum - I've come to see that in spades.

Tutorman said:

The problem with that thinking is it makes God a very bad guy that is always mad instead of a compassionate God who wants all to come to Him (1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9) and is sadden to see sinners die (Ezekiel 33:11).

Click to expand...

It's a matter of some human opinion that that makes Him a bad guy. His ways are not our ways.

Not sure how it's a problem to agree with the Word of God even if you don't particularly like what it says.

By the way - no one thinks He's always mad. In fact He's kind of pleased with His children whom He sees as the bride of His beloved Son.

No one here doubts that He wants all to come to Him. No one here doubts that it saddens Him to see sinners die. Where did you get such an idea?

Tutorman said:

As is in our Liturgy when we get the Blessing:
God loves you.
God has forgiven you.
God is not angry at you.
And God will never leave you, nor forsake you.

Click to expand...

If your liturgy addresses the state of His born again children - it is absolutely correct.

If it addresses the state of humanity in general it is dead wrong.

Tutorman said:

So not everyone believes in a wrathful God ready to destroy us at a moments notice so Christ had to die to appease Him.

Click to expand...

Nor do I. God is and has been very patient with those who sin against Him - even those who claim to be Christians and yet do not believe and teach all that the scriptures teach.

Tutorman said:

I believe the recapitulation theory of the atonement basically Christ succeeded where Adam failed.

Click to expand...

Me too - among other obviously true theories concerning the atonement.

It's OK by the way to believe all that the scriptures teach. You don't have to pick and choose between which portions make you comfortable and which portions do not.