Featured The just and the justifier

So you believe that God's wrath is against sin, whereas I believe it's against sin. Right! I agree!

You tried this one before. It's a hypothetical question. Christ did bear man's punishment (Isaiah 53:5).

 

While

upon that Cross, Jesus assumed/took on the sins of His own people, and so as the Sin bearer, the Father dealt with Him in the same manner as all lost sinners will be in judgement. God NEVER ceased seeing Jesus as His beloved, but he dealt with Him as the sin bearer there, and so he indeed experienced the outpouring of the wrath on Him from God due to Him being seen as now in our place before Holy God.

 

[/QUOTE]
Apart from the PST theory, just how is the wrath of God against sin, and appeasement for that sin satisfied and made propitiated for then?

 

Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men.......' God wrath is against unrighteousness and ungodliness, aka sin. But sin does not exist where there are no sinners. Your dichotomy is a false one.

No. It is because the Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution exalts God's righteousness and justice as well as His love. 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will magnify the law and make it honourable.' It also exalts and magnifies the perfect obedience and love to sinners of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have no problem with Luther's statement--none at all. I have a problem with your rider to it. The death of Christ outside of Penal Substitution makes no sense, as Luther knew perfectly well.

Also, to say that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution 'exalts man' and 'downgrades Christ's nature' is grossly untrue (to use no stronger term) and I hope you will stop repeating it unless you can substantiate it from the Scriptures or show where I have exalted man in my posts. You fall all too easily into these cheap shots when you run out of arguments, and that is not fitting for a moderator.

 

Only if you fail to quote the Scriptures accurately. 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins......'
'That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' That is why, right from Genesis 3, there had to be sacrifice before there was forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). With the death and resurrection of Christ, there is one perfect acceptable sacrifice for all time, so that it need never be repeated, but the principle remains. Christ has taken away His people's sins by paying the penalty for them in full. Isaiah 43:25 (for example) is predicated on the work of the Servant, otherwise there is no reason for Christ to have come at all.

Unless the Christ had a perfect human nature, He would have been unsuitable as a redeemer at all (Leviticus 2:21). Did you ever consider that if Christ's perfect nature is sufficient He need not have died at all? He could have come to earth, lived His life of total obedience and righteousness on our behalf and then have gone back into heaven. But what then of God's justice? God declares, "I will not justify the wicked." 'By no means clearing the guilty.' Christ's suffering and death are sufficient to redeem all who come to God through Him, 'Because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many.'

 

This is an epic case of the pot calling the kettle black. You vaguely cited a verse of Scripture, conveniently leaving a part of it out because it doesn't fit your philosophy. Marcion would be proud of you! It is you who is trying (unsuccessfully) to mold the Scriptures to fit your viewpoint.

Indeed it doesn't. But Christ was made sin so that God's righteous anger against sin and sinners might rest upon His sinless shoulders instead of ours. Praise God for Christ made sin for us! (2 Corinthians 5:21). Praise God for Christ taking the curse upon sin and sinners to Himself for us! (Galatians 3:13). No hope without these two great Biblical truths!

 

Jesus was NOT suffering the wrath of God based upon himself, as he was/is the sinless Son of God, but he became the sin bearer for His own, and so took in our place what we all deserved!

 

Martin is actually using those scriptures to prove the point that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness for sins, and God wrath has to have a target in order to be propitiated.

 

Jesus was sinless, and yet was to God chief sinner at same time!

 

Jesus became sin for us before the father, as when God viewed Him upon that Cross, did not see Jesus, but our sins upon Him!
Jesus always remained sinless and pure, but while on the Cross, to God was the sin bearer of mankind.

 

the wrath of God is to be poured out upon this earth, and upon the lost, see revelation, correct?

 

But the Righteous will suffer God's curse (Galatians 3:13). Think about it.

You are missing the point. God's righteous anger is against sinners. If Christ has not borne it on our behalf, we must bear it ourselves. This is quite apart from the merits of Christ.

And you need to turn down the heat. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is clearly taught in Scripture and you getting in a tizzy about it is not going to change that. Thousands of better men than you or I have believed that, and you are just making a fool of yourself by claiming that they were all 'invested in extra-biblical theory.'