>>587539
>i assume you're reading those verses like a pagan and not a christian
I think I'm reading it like it is
>if you think his death appeased an angry God
The text is perfectly clear
<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.
All that's left is to believe it.
>see what hilasterion means in greek
It means propitiation, but I don't see what Greek has to do with a Hebrew text
>also penal substitution doesn't really forgive sins… the debt is not really forgiven; it’s just transferred.
No, the debt is forgiven. Those sinners really did the sin, they really deserve the punishment, and they really are forgiven.
>But we are commanded to forgive as God forgave us
That doesn't mean in the exact same way. It means we are to show mercy as God has shown us mercy.
>vent my wrath on someone innocent bystander
Jesus isn't just some innocent bystander that the mean angry God goes and uses as a punching bag, He willing gave Himself up for our sakes.
>No, obviously we are to simply let it go and graciously accept the offense.
God's holiness and justice is infinite, He will tolerate no evil. Just face up to the fact that you believe in a god who is unjust, a judge who lets guilty criminals get off without punishment.
>>587541
>penal substitution implies God changes
No.
>First He’s angry with us, then He changes His mind and decides to love us
He isn't the one who changed, we are. We became His beloved Son, with whom He is well pleased. And He did not decide to love us, but because He loved us He died for us.
>How can a God who is infinite, self-giving love ever vary in His degree of love towards us?
His love doesn't vary in degree, it varies in type.
>Penal substitution makes the resurrection unnecessary
No.
>The resurrection then becomes simply a nice bonus, nothing more than a “proof” that Christ is divine.
No, His resurrection was absolutely necessary. For starters, His offering required that He intercede for us. He could not do that from hell. But not only that, He conquered death and opened the way to heaven. The saints under the old law were no less justified than those under the new, but they did not proceed directly to God. Death still shut the way, but Jesus by negating death opened the door out and let them in.
>>587543
>Contra penal substitution, the Bible tells us that one person can't be punished for another. each one shall die for his own sins
We cannot use scriptures designed to rebuke the excuses of sinners (that their fathers ate the sour grapes) to read out of the bible explicit teaching. Scripture teaches explicitly not only that Jesus was punished for our sins, but it teaches a concept called federal headship. For example, Hebrews 7:8-10 says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek inasmuch as he was represented by his father Abraham. In Isaiah 10, the king of Assyria is called Assyria, and the whole nation is punished for his sin.
>>587554
>Could you please explain how this supports penal subsitution?
Christ became the sin of the people who became His righteousness. An even clearer verse is Galatians 3:13 where Christ is said to have received the curse of the law in our place.