Featured Baptists and doctrine/eschatology

The blood of Jesus has within it the power to cleanse us from all of our sins, correct?

 

No.

The blood itself cleanses us of all sin. (1John 1:7).

There is no known power within it, but it is the power.

This is an interesting aspect that (imo) some miss, and I’m thankful you considered it important to bring out.

Often The focus is primarily upon only the forgiveness aspects of the blood. (Hebrews 9).

Yet, for believers there is that aspect of need to be “foot washed” as Christ explained to Peter. That those who are bathed need only feet cleaned from walking in the world. (John 13).

The blood resolved the difficulty of forgiveness for all. But not all are adopted

The cleaning is “as needed” only for the adopted (believers), those in whom there is no condemnation, but still require confession and cleaning as sin is evidenced in them.

The cleansing is not a time of punishment, but of refreshing the relationship. That which is denied to that first Adam.

Thanks for bringing this aspect of the blood.

Remember that the OT atonement also included the aspect cleansing using the blood, too.

 

Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is [present tense] revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness on men.....'
Colossians 3:6. 'Because of these things [sins] the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience'
2 Corinthians 5:21. 'God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'

How do sinful men and women become perfectly righteous before God? God makes the sinless Son of God to be sin on our behalf. All our 'ungodliness' and 'unrighteousness' are imputed to Him. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.' so if our iniquities are laid upon Christ, so is God's wrath against those very sins.
It must be so, because we are also told that Christ became a curse on our behalf. Who made Christ a curse? Who would be able to do so? Only God. He made Christ to be sin; He made Him a curse and Christ bore the punishment for sin so that God might be 'Just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' Anyone who acquits the wicked is an abomination to God (Proverbs 17:15; Nahum 1:3), so Christ had our sins imputed to Him and suffered the penalty.

I have quoted of alluded to seven Scriptures, so I think I have complied with your request.

 

All these and more have been dealt with, and not a single one states or even alludes that God's wrath was poured out upon His Son.

Exactly the opposite is the reality of each of these verses.

The dilemma presented is that when one ACCEPTS such wrath was poured out, it must logically follow that then there is no wrath as this verses DO state, for such wrath is already exhausted upon Christ. God didn't suddenly start over gathering up wrath following the Son's crucifixion.

These verses actually DISPROVE the view of wrath being poured out on the Son at the crucifixion rather than proving such happened.

The opposite of what you desire to prove is proved by the verses.

This is a small item, but, (if my language skills haven't completely shut the door on my recall) the words "to be" are not really a part of the verse, but added to clarify. It matters little, for the fact remains that God made the no sin Son, sin on our behalf. Where is the mention of wrath?

Isaiah states, that God laid on the Son "the iniquities of us all." Where is the mention of wrath?

You are assuming what the Scriptures do not state.

For there to be wrath, the display types of the atonement and the prophet statements must have declared such would occur. The type does not and the prophets are silent ACCEPT to show that God was "pleased" (Isaiah) and that there is an astounding lack of "God's wrath poured out on the Son" in the Psalms concerning the crucifixion and the Christ.

The assumption of "it must be so" is not Scripture proof.

IF God, who purposed, foretold, displayed in pictures on both earth and in the heavenly bodies, and even by the before and after statements of the Christ and His apostles, WOULD pour out such wrath upon the Son, then it follows that such wrath would be foundational to the crucifixion and foretold, displayed in pictures on both earth and in the heavenly bodies, and even by the before and after statements of the Christ and His apostles.

But amazingly as it may seem, not a single item from the list above (repeated twice) has wrath as an aspect.


Not even "alluded" as an aspect.


Therefore, such thinking that God poured wrath out upon the Son at the crucifixion remains a human added concept with no Scriptural teeth.

 

This explains why, since Jesus is our Sin bearer, and became the One who took the wrath due to us for breaking the law of God, and for being found in sin....

 

Do you deny then that God has any active wrath towards sin then?

 

I quoted Romans 1:18 and Colossians 3:6 to you. Do you deny the wrath of God against sinners?
How then does God 'justify the ungodly' (Romans 4:5)? He does it by making the Lord Jesus Christ sin. How does that help? It doesn't unless it means that all the sins of believers were imputed to Christ (Isaiah 53:6). So how does that help? It doesn't unless Christ pays the penalty for them. Because God, as I keep pointing out, will not justify the guilty. So Christ is made guilty of all the sins of all of God's elect and the wrath of God towards sin (remember Romans 1:18 & Colossians 3:6) is poured out, not on the sinners, but on God's innocent spotless Son made sin for us, so that we become the righteousness of God in Christ. That is, God sees us as dressed in the perfect purity and righteousness of Christ. It is the Great exchange; Christ takes our sin and pays the penalty on our behalf, and we take His perfect obedience, so God sees no sin is us, but only righteousness.

'And in that day you will say,
"O LORD, I will praise you;
Though You were angry with me,
Your anger is turned away and You comfort me"' (Isaiah 12:1).

'That day' is the day of Christ (cf. Isaiah 11:1, 10). How is God's anger turned away? God will not justify the wicked (Nahum 1:3 etc.).

I would love for you to explain how that is.

I am going to take a break from the board for a while because I have some sermons to prepare, but I will be back on this subject because of its huge importance to soteriology.
But I want to thank you, Agedman, for conducting the discussion in a civilized way, and if my posts have fallen short of that, I beg your pardon.