Featured The Bearer of Sin and Guilt

You are denying the 100% humanity of the Son.

 

That whole post and I include my opinion at the very end, what three of a few more sentences, and you focus on me "prattling about my feelings."
We are not talking about other offerings, but the single event in which was conducted once a year.
A specific event that acquired the reconciliation with God for the sin of the people that portrayed the ministry and work of the Christ in bringing reconciliation and redemption.

The other offerings of what you consider important were individual offerings in which can be compared to that of a believer confessing and cleansing and are the work of the believer and God.

At what point did God show wrath when presented with the atonement offering?

Why?

Were the same conditions evident at the crucifixion?

Colossians 1 states:

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.
​

Do you read the words God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in HIM, AND through Him...making peace through the blood of HIS cross.

Because the fullness of God dwell in the Christ, then it is impossible for God to have poured out wrath to punish the Son or the sin the Son became.

 

Does not the PSA deny the 100% Fullness of God of the Son, and cause the division between God and humanity in the Son?

Again, It is the PSA that most certainly denies the trinity, not me, and therefore denies the inseparable union of the Christ fully God and fully man - indivisible.

 

Am I?

Have I mocked anyone (but you) on these threads?

Have you engaged by presenting your view and defending it with appropriate use of Scriptures? Others have. Unsuccessfully as they might be, these threads are full of such conversations.

Did I not share Scriptures and my thinking of a post to you? What was your response.

Did I not encourage you from the first to be engaged and set forth your thinking?

What attitude of yours has been displayed.

So, I bit back.

If iron sharpens iron, let us both be sharpened and get on with discussions of the issues on the thread(s).

You want to defend PSA, then defend it.

Why not start by showing how the fullness of God can dwell in the Christ and yet God pour divine judgement out upon Him.

 

It does deny the trinity but rather affirms it.
Jesus took upon Himself a body of flesh to fulfill the Covenant of redemption. 1tim2:5...Hebrews2, phil2.

 

I totally agree that He took on flesh to fulfill the covenant of redemption, that is what the Scroll in the Revelation is about and that which is mentioned that the testator must die in the Hebrews. The middle east Scrolls of the ancients in which were what we called the last will and testament were indicated by having seven seals sealing them. Each seal had to be broken before the scroll could be unwrapped and read. But all that is for another thread.

Just mentioning again that we agree in part.

I have posted a few times from Colossians 1. That the fullness of God dwell in the Son and was active "by making peace through the blood of His cross."

Because I affirm the trinity, and that God cannot bring rebuke to any member of the trinity for they are always in complete unity, and that this is born out in the statements of the relationship by Christ, then PSA thinking of divine judgement upon the Son is in error.

 

The penal substitutionary view of the atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth. (Substitutionary Atonement - The Gospel Coalition)
​

This statement is the core of the debate of these threads.

The "full punishment we deserved' is not so much a problem EXCEPT if it involves some kind of divine judgement poured out upon the Son.

Our Saviour suffered at the hands of humans - in effect my ancestors and therefore, me.

My own hands did smite, wound, place strips on Him. My own mouth did mock and jeer Him, and like Adam I blamed my actions upon God.

After all had God not made Him as He was and me as I was, then we might have gotten along.

And besides, doesn't the PSA thinking also blame God?

 

Vicarious Atonement:

Vicarious Atonement is the teaching that the atonement which states that Christ‘s death was “legal.” It satisfied the legal justice of God. Jesus bore the penalty of sin when He died on the cross. His death was a substitution for the believers. In other words, He substituted Himself for them upon the cross. Jesus hanged in our place as He bore our sin in His body on the cross. (Vicarious Atonement)

24He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree,
so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. (1 Peter)​

The PSA goes beyond this definition by presenting that God had to pronounce divine justice and punish the Son. Yet, the NT in not a single place presents such happening.

It is human conjuring at best.

Sometimes ones supporting PSA point to Romans 3 as proof. But what does it actually present?

3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? 4Certainly not! Let God be true and every man a liar. As it is written:

“So that You may be proved right when You speak and victorious when You judge.” ​

5But if our unrighteousness highlights the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict His wrath on us? I am speaking in human terms. 6Certainly not! In that case, how could God judge the world?

“There is no one righteous, not even one.
11There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
13“Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.”
“The venom of vipers is on their lips.”
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery lie in their wake,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”​

19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
20Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin.

21But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets.

22And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

25God presented Him as the atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand.

26He did this to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and to justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of works? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Certainly not! Instead, we uphold the law.​

There is in this passage the very demise of the PSA thinking.

God did present the Savior as an atoning Sacrifice (propitiation). There was no wrath demonstrated in the OT upon the atoning sacrifice.

That language reaches back into what Paul (the writer) was extremely familiar. The presentation of the yearly atonement in which the blood of the sacrifice was taken into the holy of holies. The only wrath ever shown was when the priest or the blood was impure. Then death was immediate.
Christ was never impure, nor as the High Priest was He unqualified.

Did Christ "nullify the law?" Not according to this passage.

Rather, when compared to Colossians 2, we read that Christ satisfied (canceled) the decrees of the Law that were held against the believers.

Therefore, just as in the OT the sacrifice of the atonement was satisfactory, and no wrath was shown, so too were the results of that atonement.
That the decrees of the Law that were held against those in the nation were canceled.

Only the very victorious Christ could accomplish such a wondrous salvation for those given to Him by the Father to be redeemed.

 

Ok, I'll bite.

What class of offerings do you want to present that apply to the crucifixion, and in which is the wrath of God displayed?

 

While Aaron gathers the necessary information to share in the thread, I did not want the readers to become confused by the types and requirements of the OT sacrificial system.

There were five specific or main offerings of the OT: Peace, Grain, Trespass, Sin, and Burnt

Of these five, three were not obliged but voluntary: Peace, Grain, and Burnt

Within the grain offering was the drink offering and within the peace offering was the wave offering.​

Two of the five offerings were obligated or required: Sin, and Trespass.

This is "offered" to help you who are reading the thread to be able to see the presentation in a scheme of what is required and what is not.

Note:
None of these is the yearly atonement sacrifice that falls on Yon Kippur. The once a year atonement sacrifice was highly specialized and was the propitiation sacrifice in which represented the Saviour.

 

When you deny PSA you automatically fall into either Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, or Neo-Apollinarianism.

 

Wow, $20 words (inflation)

Actually, Iconoclast and I have our moments of disagreement, but we have so very much in agreement.

May I ask (iyo) exactly what manner are these three indicating a falling away from PSA?

 

I will answer this accusation.

Both @JonC and I as well as most members of the BB take the Christ as being totally God and totally human. That includes both natures combined, but without sin. That is to state, the Christ is as the first Adam - pre fall - and not sinful, yet capable of being tested and tempted in every way just as every human from the fall.

That is also to state that the Christ was fully God, not just in likeness, but co -equal in all glory and authority of God. He was indeed the only God/man. He called Himself the Son of man, and also the great I Am.

What PSA does is actually cause one to consider one of the three views that you list.

For, many who present the PSA must acknowledge that they separate the human aspects from the divine. I will not get into that, at this point, but allow you to read back through the threads and see how this is evidenced.

PSA must present a divided Christ to be true. For at no time can one member of the trinity be punished by any other member of the trinity, nor can any member of the God head be polluted by sin and in need of punishment. God is holy, just, and righteous. Christ has always been God.

PSA must also present God as sinful, for it shows Him punishing one who is without sin which is an unrighteous act. The Scriptures teach that Christ carried the sin, but remained sinless.

PSA also violates the unclean making the unclean clean presentation in the Scriptures. Had Jesus become unclean, He then would be disqualified from making clean those who were unclean. Therefore, Christ never became unclean taking on the sin of the world.

PSA also violates the very substitutionary aspect that it touts. The Lord Jesus having become sin (taken on sin, carried sin) yet remained sinless cannot substitute for humans but can only satisfy the decrees of the Law that stood against man by bringing the reconciliation of God to man. There was no covering of human sins, no ignoring of human continual sins, and the wages of sin are still paid by the human body ceasing to have vitality. So, there was no true substitution, but there was satisfaction.

I could go on, but for now this is enough.

 

God the father was not commiting an act of cosmic child abuse upon Jesus, as Jesus agreed to taken upon Himself our sins and take upon Himself our due wrath and judgement so that we could be set free and pardoned by the father!

 

So when it states to us that there is wrath of God towards the ungodly and all who reject Jesus, the bible lied?

 

Psa demonstrates to us that sin is very bad and evil, and that it took Holy God Himself to pay for and purchase all saved from his own judgement and wrath due to us as sinners!

 

ONLY if you are willing to redefine the wrath and judgement of God!