The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)

[agedman]

Are you stating here that Jesus under Psa suffered"Cosmic child abuse, is a pagan concept>"

No, I state that PSA theory of God pouring out His wrath upon the Son is an non-biblical concept born out of the philosophy prevalent of the reformation times.

Unless you can prove by Scriptures, then such wrath did not happen.

Remember, no one is in denial that the Lord did not suffer as Peter said:

"22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know. 23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. 24But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches." (Acts 2)​

I presented to you both philosophy and Scriptures in the previous post.

The "pagan concept" of "cosmic childabuse" is not far from being accurate. For ultimately, if one is to approach the PSA theory from a philosophical discussion, then the question of, "How is it not a violation of the trinity for one member of the trinity to be punished by other memebers?"

The unity of the trinity is a principle concept of the Scriptures. Three persons in total unity as one God. Yet, the PSA presents that the unity became broken. Impossible, for God cannot be broken, and neither can the trinity.

Back to Scriptures.
Perhaps the only place that gives a glimpse into the actual thinking of the Christ on the cross is found in Psalm 22. There is no place in that Psalm in which the supposed wrath of God is presented or evident.

Who brutalized the Redeemer? "We esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted, " But was He?

Who spit upon him?

Who pulled His beard?

Who mocked Him?

Who applied the strips (lashes)?

Who wounded Him?

It wasn't God.

So who was it?

What did Peter say in Acts 2?

 

[Iconoclast]

No, I state that PSA theory of God pouring out His wrath upon the Son is an non-biblical concept born out of the philosophy prevalent of the reformation times.

Unless you can prove by Scriptures, then such wrath did not happen.

Remember, no one is in denial that the Lord did not suffer as Peter said:

"22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know. 23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. 24But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches." (Acts 2)​

I presented to you both philosophy and Scriptures in the previous post.

The "pagan concept" of "cosmic childabuse" is not far from being accurate. For ultimately, if one is to approach the PSA theory from a philosophical discussion, then the question of, "How is it not a violation of the trinity for one member of the trinity to be punished by other memebers?"

The unity of the trinity is a principle concept of the Scriptures. Three persons in total unity as one God. Yet, the PSA presents that the unity became broken. Impossible, for God cannot be broken, and neither can the trinity.

Back to Scriptures.
Perhaps the only place that gives a glimpse into the actual thinking of the Christ on the cross is found in Psalm 22. There is no place in that Psalm in which the supposed wrath of God is presented or evident.

Who brutalized the Redeemer? "We esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted, " But was He?

Who spit upon him?

Who pulled His beard?

Who mocked Him?

Who applied the strips (lashes)?

Who wounded Him?

It wasn't God.

So who was it?

What did Peter say in Acts 2?

So....according to you two.....It was "mother nature" who destroyed the world of the ungodly with the flood at the time of Noah?
God did not physically touch the water. It was not Him?
Somehow.....it was just meteorological logical conditions of the evil world system that did it?
God's Holy wrath against sin...had nothing to do with it?
God is love.
The text says the thoughts and intents of their hearts we're only evil continually, but we know boys will be boys.
The idea of retributive justice is a pagan concept.??? Or is was just a concept popular at the time of the reformation.
It is so simple.
The evil flood came and took them away.
God did not quite approve of all they were doing, but wrath is not clearly stated, is it?

 

[JonC]

So....according to you two.....It was "mother nature" who destroyed the world of the ungodly with the flood at the time of Noah?

Let just stop here for a moment, brother.

I know that I have never posted that mother nature caused the flood, and I am pretty sure @agedman did not either.

Please provide the post you are referencing and let's discuss it. I see you are confused about something that has been posted, but I cannot pinpoint the source.

To address your claim, no - your conclusion is incorrect. God caused the flood. He did, of course, use rain and it is possible He used some type of meteorological event.

If you are interested in discussing the flood then please feel free to start a new thread. But first, let's look at the post you are having trouble understanding.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No, I state that PSA theory of God pouring out His wrath upon the Son is an non-biblical concept born out of the philosophy prevalent of the reformation times.

Unless you can prove by Scriptures, then such wrath did not happen.

Remember, no one is in denial that the Lord did not suffer as Peter said:

"22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know. 23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. 24But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches." (Acts 2)​

I presented to you both philosophy and Scriptures in the previous post.

The "pagan concept" of "cosmic childabuse" is not far from being accurate. For ultimately, if one is to approach the PSA theory from a philosophical discussion, then the question of, "How is it not a violation of the trinity for one member of the trinity to be punished by other memebers?"

The unity of the trinity is a principle concept of the Scriptures. Three persons in total unity as one God. Yet, the PSA presents that the unity became broken. Impossible, for God cannot be broken, and neither can the trinity.

Back to Scriptures.
Perhaps the only place that gives a glimpse into the actual thinking of the Christ on the cross is found in Psalm 22. There is no place in that Psalm in which the supposed wrath of God is presented or evident.

Who brutalized the Redeemer? "We esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted, " But was He?

Who spit upon him?

Who pulled His beard?

Who mocked Him?

Who applied the strips (lashes)?

Who wounded Him?

It wasn't God.

So who was it?

What did Peter say in Acts 2?

Sometimes we pour out wrath on people by just doing nothing. Sometimes we pour out our anger by turning our backs on people

Thats what the father and spirit did when your sin was placed on Jesus body.

If you think God can be united with sin. I fear You may not understand the righteousness and justice of God very well

 

[JesusFan]

So....according to you two.....It was "mother nature" who destroyed the world of the ungodly with the flood at the time of Noah?
God did not physically touch the water. It was not Him?
Somehow.....it was just meteorological logical conditions of the evil world system that did it?
God's Holy wrath against sin...had nothing to do with it?
God is love.
The text says the thoughts and intents of their hearts we're only evil continually, but we know boys will be boys.
The idea of retributive justice is a pagan concept.??? Or is was just a concept popular at the time of the reformation.
It is so simple.
The evil flood came and took them away.
God did not quite approve of all they were doing, but wrath is not clearly stated, is it?

There are some here who seem to trying their best to deny the Wrath of God!

 

[37818]

Penal Substitution Theory was just a reworking of RCC doctrine.

That is a post reformation interpertation. The RCC interpertations are post Apostolic.
Again, Romans 5:8, Romans 6:23, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 53:10-12, Ezekiel 18:4, James 5:20, Matthew 10:28, John 19:28-30.
FYI, I believe in the mortality of the soul and the eternal suffering of the perishing, Mark 9:48. Not in annihilationism.

 

[JesusFan]

Let just stop here for a moment, brother.

I know that I have never posted that mother nature caused the flood, and I am pretty sure @agedman did not either.

Please provide the post you are referencing and let's discuss it. I see you are confused about something that has been posted, but I cannot pinpoint the source.

To address your claim, no - your conclusion is incorrect. God caused the flood. He did, of course, use rain and it is possible He used some type of meteorological event.

If you are interested in discussing the flood then please feel free to start a new thread. But first, let's look at the post you are having trouble understanding.

Does God have a wrath towards sins that must be propitiated then?

 

[Iconoclast]

Let just stop here for a moment, brother.

I know that I have never posted that mother nature caused the flood, and I am pretty sure @agedman did not either.

Please provide the post you are referencing and let's discuss it. I see you are confused about something that has been posted, but I cannot pinpoint the source.

To address your claim, no - your conclusion is incorrect. God caused the flood. He did, of course, use rain and it is possible He used some type of meteorological event.

If you are interested in discussing the flood then please feel free to start a new thread. But first, let's look at the post you are having trouble understanding.

I am not having trouble with any post.
I was just using the same method of interpretation that you two are.
It is just so simple, you might have missed it.
I agree there was a flood.
I agree there was rain.
I agree it lasted 40 days.
God said He would destroy the earth...but did He?
It is still here.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So....according to you two.....It was "mother nature" who destroyed the world of the ungodly with the flood at the time of Noah?
God did not physically touch the water. It was not Him?
Somehow.....it was just meteorological logical conditions of the evil world system that did it?
God's Holy wrath against sin...had nothing to do with it?
God is love.
The text says the thoughts and intents of their hearts we're only evil continually, but we know boys will be boys.
The idea of retributive justice is a pagan concept.??? Or is was just a concept popular at the time of the reformation.
It is so simple.
The evil flood came and took them away.
God did not quite approve of all they were doing, but wrath is not clearly stated, is it?

Excellent analogy! I wish I'd thought of it!

 

[JonC]

I am not having trouble with any post.
I was just using the same method of interpretation that you two are.
It is just so simple, you might have missed it.
I agree there was a flood.
I agree there was rain.
I agree it lasted 40 days.
God said He would destroy the earth...but did He?
It is still here.

No, you are not.

Here us why :

You are equating the "wrath to come" with the Judgment ("on that day"). Those who died in the flood did not experience that wrath of which we have been discussing (they will also face Judgment, or the wrath that we escape in Christ).

Another issue is you dismiss that Noah himself was a sinner. He did not merit salvation, but he was considered righteous. I would argue this is by faith.

It appears that, if you were not being dishonest with @agedman and me....and I have no reason to think you dishonest), that you do not fully comprehend classic or traditional Christianity insofar as your replies indicate.

Please feel free to ask questions - that is how we learn. It would save you from making unfounded assumptions by eliminating the error before it occurs.

That world has long been destroyed. I think you are confusing the word "world" with the end "planet".

That said, traditional Christianity has long used the Ark as an illustration of our deliverance from death. Noah, by faith, built an art. Those outside died (they drowned, I suspect), but thise inside were spared.

Where you demonstrate a lack of understanding about our position is both @agedman and I affirm Scripture that the wages of sin is death. We also affirm that the wrath of God will be on the unsaved at Judgment, but in Christ we escape tge wrath to come.

Christ's death was not God pouring His wrath out on Christ. Neither was Peter's death, although he shared the same "cup" (as would many to follow).

You seem to be a man who loves to study Scripture. I challenge you to simply study Scripture...that is, God's Word, "what is written in the text (without adding to it).

It is impossible to stick to Scripture and walk away a Penal substitution Theorist.

 

[JonC]

Excellent analogy! I wish I'd thought of it!

Not really. It is, if you think about it, quite silly as it can apply to so many situations.

Scripture foretells the scattering of the early Christians as God's plan. This was by persecution. We can look back and see why. But it would be horribly wrong to hold that God persecuted he church.

Why? Because if that were true then God would have been proven unfaithful. It is anti-biblical.

Same with Penal Substitution Theory. We know it was God's plan, His will, that Christ suffer and die by evil forces. But to say it was God's wrath Christ suffered is wrong.

Why? Because if that were true then God would have been proven unfaithful. It is an anti-biblical theory. It is unbiblical be ause it is not in the Bible, it is anti-biblical because it opposes what is written in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Does God have a wrath towards sins that must be propitiated then?

What is propitiated is the "wrath to come", that judgment given to Christ. This wrath is against the unrighteous. But God does not need anything.

 

[JesusFan]

What is propitiated is the "wrath to come", that judgment given to Christ. This wrath is against the unrighteous. But God does not need anything.

Jesus as the Sin Bearer became as if he was that, but was always still Holy and sinless!

 

[JonC]

That is a post reformation interpertation. The RCC interpertations are post Apostolic.
Again, Romans 5:8, Romans 6:23, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 53:10-12, Ezekiel 18:4, James 5:20, Matthew 10:28, John 19:28-30.
FYI, I believe in the mortality of the soul and the eternal suffering of the perishing, Mark 9:48. Not in annihilationism.

It is certainly post-Reformation. There is no evidence Penal Substitution Theory existed before the Reformation. RCC doctrine is almost there, but no churches outside of the RCC held anything like Penal Substitution Theory.

Again, Romans 5:8, Romans 6:23, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 53:10-12, Ezekiel 18:4, James 5:20, Matthew 10:28, and John 19:28-30 have nothing to do with Penal SubstitutionTheor, exceot the Theory mixes in those verses with its humanistic philosophy.

I have no issues with the passages Penal Substitution Theory uses. The issue I have is what the Theory adds to passages changes their meaning.

It is impossible to believe Penal Substitution Theory without adding to Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Jesus as the Sin Bearer became as if he was that, but was always still Holy and sinless!

Jesus bore our sins bodily. And yes, He is eternally righteous (He is tge Righteous One spoken of in the OT, the One God will always favor).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Not really. It is, if you think about it, quite silly as it can apply to so many situations.

Scripture foretells the scattering of the early Christians as God's plan. This was by persecution. We can look back and see why. But it would be horribly wrong to hold that God persecuted he church.

Why? Because if that were true then God would have been proven unfaithful. It is anti-biblical.

On the contrary, I think the analogy was spot on and you are changing the subject. @Iconoclast's post was in reply to @agedman's post #41. I think maybe you should read that. You should also study and meditate upon Genesis 45:8.

Same with Penal Substitution Theory. We know it was God's plan, His will, that Christ suffer and die by evil forces. But to say it was God's wrath Christ suffered is wrong.

If the Lord Jesus did not suffer God's wrath against sin then nothing is more certain that you and I will suffer it. This is made plain in numerous portions of the Bible to those who have eyes to see.

Why? Because if that were true then God would have been proven unfaithful. It is an anti-biblical theory. It is unbiblical be ause it is not in the Bible, it is anti-biblical because it opposes what is written in Scripture.

Continually saying "'taint so" does not affect the truth of Penal Substitution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Who brutalized the Redeemer? "We esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted, " But was He?

Who spit upon him?

Who pulled His beard?

Who mocked Him?

Who applied the strips (lashes)?

Who wounded Him?

It wasn't God.

So who was it?

What did Peter say in Acts 2?

What does the Holy Spirit say in Isaiah 53:10?

 

[agedman]

On the contrary, I think the analogy was spot on and you are changing the subject. @Iconoclast's post was in reply to @agedman's post #41. I think maybe you should read that. You should also study and meditate upon Genesis 45:8.

If the Lord Jesus did not suffer God's wrath against sin then nothing is more certain that you and I will suffer it. This is made plain in numerous portions of the Bible to those who have eyes to see.

Continually saying "'taint so" does not affect the truth of Penal Substitution.

I mentioned anything about the flood? Nope.

@Iconoclast and you are attempting to disprove what @JonC and I have presented.

We have presented that the "substitution" brought satisfaction just as the OT presented and validated by Hebrews.

We have presented that the "suffering" of the Messiah was at the hands of humans as validated by Peter in Acts.

We have presented that the "sacrifice" of the Savior was pleasing to the Father just as the OT presented and validated in Isaiah.

What we have yet to find is proof that God had to pour wrath out upon the Son.

It is a violation of the Trinity for it designates a member as having to become unholy and defiled. Yet the Scriptures state that He was without sin.

It is a violation of the unity of the Father/Son relationship, for the Scriptures state that the mirrors the actions of the Father.

It is a violation of the principles of when wrath came to one offering the temple atonement sacrifice, for neither the blood nor the High Priest (Christ) were unworthy.

And so forth.

Had Penal Substitution Theory NOT included that wrath had to be poured out upon the Son in order for God's justification to be satisfied, then it might have withstood at least some test of Scriptures.

However, when the OT shows not a smidgen of wrath EXCEPT upon the unworthy priest and unworthy blood, then such wrath at the crucifixion is unfounded.

Two great passages that give in depth information concerning the effects of the Crucifixion are found in the book of Hebrews and in the Psalms 22. Neither show any nor mention any such wrath of God.

Colossians 2 shows exactly how the justification took place. It was not by God pouring out wrath upon the Son, but the nailing of the decrees that stood against believers to the cross. The crucifixion itself.

This idea that God cannot look upon sin, and must turn His back upon the sin, as a poster stated is also error.

God looks upon the human condition all day and night, nothing is hid from Him, and He does not turn away nor is He offended.
For the unbeliever is already condemned.

 

[Van]

"What Jesus said was finished, in John 10:30, was finished before the event of John 19:28. What was it?"

Jesus did not say something was finished in John 10:30. Apparently the reference is to John 19:30 which appears in scripture two verses after John 19:28.

In verse 30, Jesus says (NASB) It is finished. In verse 28, Jesus knows all or all things, have been accomplished. The all things or all did not include fulfillment of scripture by saying "I am thirsty." So the all (or all things) refers to some mission or accomplishment prior to his physical death. The question is "What was it?" He had lived His life in accordance with the will of God, becoming the satisfactory sacrifice to be God's sin offering for humanity. My two cents...

 

[37818]

The phrase penal substitution is discriptive. Romans 5:8, Romans 6:23 teaches what?