Featured The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

"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...