Penal Substitution

Please stop this kind of foolishness! No one has confused "convict" with "condemn". No one has charged God with convicting Jesus of sin - no one!

 

No one is saying that Christ was literally and actually made to be sin and YOU KNOW THAT! So there is really no need to say you are "a bit puzzled"!!! If you want to argue just to argue then lets stop this discussion as that is a waste of time. Jesus was "made to be sin" IN EXACTLY THE SAME SENSE we are made righteous in this text. The only consistent application is imputation in God's law court and that is justification.

 

The real issue here is your failure to comprehend the Law of God for what it really is - inseparable from God. Jesus made it crystal clear that the essence of the law is love. You seem not to understand that! If you do understand that, then the law and God are inseparably one and therefore the penalty of the law must be satisfied or God is at odds with his own nature as both sin and sinners are an offence to his OWN PERSON and justice requires penal satisfaction.

 

For example, the lamb without spot and blemish was not "convicted" of lacking spot or blemish and yet was "condemned" to death "for sin" of the people. The type is parallel with Christ.

 

Jesus was the Sin Bearing lamb of God , who was willing to tak ethe full wrath of the father upon Himself in order to be abke to savethose whom he died in the place of on the Cross. Someone HAD to die to pay the sin debt, and if the Lord Jesus was not my personal substitute, than how was God able to now freely forgive me?

 

God crushed/bruised/laid waste to the Suffering Servant, how was that not enduring the wrath/punishment of God directed towards sinners?

 

Now we are at 4 pages and counting.

1) As the Lamb of God, Christ became a sin offering for us. This is obvious.

2) As the Lamb of God, Christ takes away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time. When God transfers a person into Christ, they undergo the circumcision of Christ, where their sin burden (what God has against us for our sins) is removed, forgiven, and "nailed to the cross." This is obvious.

PSA (where Christ died for the specific sins of the previously chosen elect) is false theology, a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement.
The actual theology is Christ died for the sins of the world, and therefore anyone of the world, when transferred into Christ has his or her sins removed, and is therefore justified.

 

It was "right" to have Jesus die in our place, to be our substitute in our stead, as there was a real requirement for the Law to be satisfied by someone death, and someone had to face the full wrath of God being poured out in judgement upon sins.
God did not order jesus to "take it like a man", no, for they had been always in full agreement from Eternity past that His death on the Cross would be the full satisifaction for the due sin debt owed to a Holy God for breaking His Holy Law.

 

For any objective reader, I have already proved it several times. Again, you have simply ignored the specifics of what I have offered in the last three posts. You generalize, you summarize but you never ever deal with the specifics and there is a very good reason why you don't.

 

That my friend is the full crux of the question. Substitution is taking upon himself what is "due" sinful men. You have to ask the question OR at least you ought to ask the question "WHY is it due??" What basis is there for demanding it is due? The only possible Biblical answer is it is due because the Law demands a penalty for sin against sinners. Paul says we "were children OF WRATH even as others" and the only reason we are no longer children OF WRATH is not because God simply dismissed that penalty for sin but because he suffered what was DUE us.

 

Jon, over and over you claim certain things are not the issue, but when texts are provided to demonstrate your view is wrong, it is those very issues which you claim are not relevant that become your escape hatch to avoid the obvious import of a text. It is this looped reasoning that allows you to continue this discussion and claim we have not provided Biblical evidence.

For example, If you acknowledge the Law as to its very essence (love) is inseparable from God's own Person that would cut off one escape hatch you use to avoid that the Law must be satisfied with regard to its clearly stated penalty.

You attempt to muddy the waters by confusing "convict" with "condemn" when typology and clear scripture shows that not only the typological just (lamb without spot or blemish) as is the antitype ("the Just for the Unjust" with regard to suffering what is "due" the unjust - Christ was "made" to be sin in the exact same sense we are "made" to be righteous.

You had previously denied that Christ was the object of God's wrath, but death is God's penal wrath against sin and sinner, God did "afflict" and God did did "bruise" and God did these things in direct connection with "sin" due us.

However, your consistent repeated escape avenues have been those very things you repeatedly claim are not the real issue or subject of discussion, when in fact, if they are taken away from your response you view simply collapses.

 

Christ was "made to be sin" IN THE EXACT SAME SENSE as we are MADE TO BE RIGHTEOUS with regard to 2 Cor. 5:21

The sacrificial lamb was personally "without spot and blemnish" but CONDEMNED to death "FOR THE SINS" God's people and thus it is with the antitype as the very same language is applied to Christ and we are told explicitly that the JUST would "suffer" for the UNJUST with regard to sin. So the transfer of condemnation of the unjust to the just is clearly stated in Scripture.

 

You don't believe it is just to kill Christ for our crime that we can go free??? Was it just to condemn us to death for Adam's crime? You don't believe it is just to kill us for Adam's crime?

In other words you don't believe God would be just to appoint a substitutionary representative as in the case of Adam or the Second Adam???