The Wrath of God Poured Out

I am not sure if you are arguing against a strawman or simply making a statement.

I do not know of any here who reject the idea that God's wrath is against all unrighteousness, that Christ suffered the "wages of sin" for us, or that we are "reckoned righteous in Christ". I have yet to see anyone deny that it was God's will for Christ to suffer, that "it pleased" God "to crush Him", that He bore our sins, became sin for us, and by His stripes we are healed.

I do see one verse where you were accused of emphasing God not acquitting the wicked while minimizing the remainder of the verse about not convicting the righteous (that both are abominations).

But other than that, I have yet to see a disagreement that the passages are applicable to any soteriological view.

Is there a verse you had in mind?

 

If you think it easier, @Martin Marprelate , just list the passages and see if anyone objects or tries to qualify them.

 

Your recollection is poor, bro.

I never objected to Christ "being made sin" (that is a false accusation). I agreed with the passage and said that I did not believe that God literally became evil (God is Holy). I did not realize you had an objection there.

 

I appreciate @Martin Marprelate 's confession that we accept the same Scripture. This means our differences are not scripture itself but the human reasoning that goes into interpretation.

But before other false accuations surface I think this would be a good time to suggest people take the effort to read what their opponent posts to include its context. There is no need to argue strawmen arguments when our posts are avaliable. It is an integrity issue.

 

The problem is that you assume that your understanding of my view is correct (i.e., if I say it is not a "clear denial" you insist it is). That, of course, is a fools errand on your part (you have already said, repeatedly, that my view does not make sense to you).

God did not literally make Jesus sin. That is a truth that I will stand on because it is biblical (it is actually in many passages taking about the nature of God). God does not author evil. Jesus is not evil.

Do you believe that Jesus literally became evil? No, of course you don't You already told us you believed it to mean that God looked upon Christ as if He were sin because He bore our sins. But that is not what the verse says. Were arguing dishonestly then, and are now on this point.

Was Jesus forsaken? Yes, absolutely. I never denied that. If you believe so, well...who cares? That only shows your lack of understanding. I never claimed that Jesus was not forsaken. I claimed Jesus was not forsaken in your view of the word. I provided instances where "forsaken" does, in fact, not mean "separated from" but a refusal to deliver or to allow to remain in a situation or circumstance (I can't use the word "leave" because you only understand one meaning of these words).

Let's not argue from ignorance. Let's argue from truth. The truth is that I never denied any of those passages. What I deny is your interpretation of those passages. If this is a principle you cannot grasp then it is just beyond your grasp. You can't be helped.

 

I do not believe that you think Jesus literally became sin. I was mentioning it because @Martin Marprelate pretends those who believe this verse means that God gave Christ as a "sin offering" and lay our sins upon Christ take a less literal approach while his view that God looked upon Christ as if he were sinful is a "literal rendering". I was pointing to the hypocrisy, not making an accusation anyone believed Christ literally became sin.

When faced with an impossible statement like that (where God literally becomes an evil or anyone can literally become an action) it is best, IMHO, to allow Scripture to define Scripture. That is how you get people like D.A. Carson and John Piper interpreting the passage as Jesus becoming a "sin offering". You have two main options, but what does other passages say? Do they say that God offered Christ as a "sin offering" or that God "looked upon Christ as if he were a sinner"?

(hint....it states only one of those)

 

He was obviously not "made sin" (an immoral act). I believe He was "made to be sin" as a "sin offering" (i.e. He bears our sin).

Do you believe God was made "an immoral act"?

 

I was asking if you believed He was made "an immoral act" (sin).

 

Don't be silly.

No. I do not believe Christ was literally made an immoral act (sin). Sin is an abstract noun. No one can literally "be made sin".

I believe "become sin" refers to God laying our iniquities upon Christ and offering Him as a guilt offering (Christ bearing our sins).

Do you believe God literally made Christ an immoral act (sin)? If not what is your interpretation?

 

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 6 AM Pacific.