Featured The Wrath of God

No, that is what NT Wright and His NPP ilk assert

 

The wraith of the father towards sins is not petty emotionalism nor selfish anger, as its Holy response to unholiness!

 

What you choose to call Neo is really Pauline Justification

 

God still has a Holy wrath against sins, and upon sinners who reject Jesus to save them, active not a passive one!

 

The wrath of the Father towards Jesus NOT due to Jesus being a sinner, but that he was bearing now as the sin bearer those sins, and as such, was as if was sinness incarnated to a Holy God!

 

Still seems to be pretty close to how the NPP defines it

 

But he was pierced for our transgressions; = God's wrath


he was crushed for our iniquities; = God's wrath


upon him was the chastisement = God's wrath


For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.—1 Peter 3:18 = substituting the innocent for the guilty

 

You use much of their terminology though, especially as in Vindication and the wrath of man and the world!

 

In the sin offering, the victim is slain and cut up. Some of the internal organs of the sin offering were burned on the brazen altar and rose as a sweet savor, showing that the victim itself was righteous and pleasing to God.

But the body of the victim was taken outside the camp, (Jesus was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem) and together with the dung, the uncleanness (Jesus was made to be sin), was burned to ash in exile from the dwelling place of God, consumed in fiery indignation.

Our sin was penalized completely in the body of Jesus.

If there is a divine response to sin other than wrath and indignation . . . and note that I said response to sin, not sinner . . . then the question of whether or not Jesus, bearing our sins, was touched with the wrath of God, may be a valid question.

 

The fact remains that the Ark was touched with the judgment of God. And no, the flood and the buffeting were not mercies. The Ark was.

God was not constrained by necessity to deliver Noah with a boat. The Ark is a picture of Christ. And the Ark was touched with the judgement of God upon sin.

 

What is absent and unBiblical? Terminology?

 

Does He deny Ezekiel 18:4, Romans 6:23 and Romans 5:8 with Isaiah 53:6, Psalms 22:1 and Isaiah 53:12, ". . . because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ."?
We need to deal with the specifics.
The fact is some of us believe the same Scriptures. The disagreement is in what those text do not explicitly say.

 

So in Isaiah 53:6 had God committed an abomination? The one who bore our sins was innocent was He not?

 

Jesus on the cross when He had our sins place on Him, He was forsaken by God per Psalms 22:1 and Psalms 22:6. And it was completed before John 19:28 prior to Jesus saying it, John 19:30, and dying physically for the purpose of His bodily resurrection.

 

Isaiah 53:6 is a penal substution, what is Biblical which includes Isaiah 53:10 and Isaiah 53:12 and contexts in our chapter of Isaiah.

 

OK since you engaged me I will respond so long as you can behave yourself.


You are downplaying what is happening in those verses. It is the equivalent to timeout in the corner, "punishment" and pierced, crushed, chastisement Those are not simply as punishment.