Featured Be On Guard against false doctrine.....False Ideas on PSA considered

Murray - “It is unnecessary, and it weakens the biblical concept of the wrath of God, to deprive it of its emotional and affective character … to construe God’s wrath as simply in his purpose to punish sin or to secure the connection between sin and misery is to equate wrath with its effects and virtually eliminate wrath as a movement within the mind of God. Wrath is the holy revulsion of God’s being against that which is the contradiction of his holiness.”

Deffinbaugh has this interesting comment on "the wrath of God":

God’s present wrath is really a gracious gesture on God’s part. It is not permanent, and it is not irreversible. When God gives men over to sin, He is not giving up on men. Giving men over to sin is God’s way of encouraging men to forsake their sin and to be saved. While God’s future wrath, once in force, cannot be reversed or escaped, God’s present wrath can be reversed, and men can escape.
The reason for this is that God has already poured out His “future wrath” on Jesus Christ. This is the good news of the gospel. God’s anger toward sin has been satisfied in Christ because His wrath was poured out on Him, at Calvary.

Have you accepted God’s forgiveness in Christ?
Those who have trusted in Christ have already been punished, in Him. No man needs to suffer God’s eternal wrath, for Christ has suffered it for us. But only those who trust in Him may share in God’s salvation through Him. God’s future wrath falls only on those who reject the suffering of Jesus Christ, bearing God’s wrath, in their place. How tragic!

 

I am not going to play your word games....I am going to show what you have posted.I will let the readers decide,

 

Here are a few examples of what readers have noticed;pt1

Purchased from whom? What was the cost?
Jon, you keep side stepping around the elephant in the room.

Jon, what does God's law require?
You use the term "paid" and then reject that a payment was made. I cannot make it up. You literally use a word, then deny that words meaning all in the same sentence. It is no wonder why no one can actually discuss the issue with you. You say one thing and mean another. This lack of clarity is all on you.

This debate rages on even on this board. Those who refuse, due to ungodly presuppositions, to accept the clear scripture of God on this matter work to set up uncommon and unrealistic standards to hold others. For example unless there is a verse the directly says Jesus took on the wrath of God for sinners then they say it cannot be proven. Problem is this standard is not held by anyone else even Jesus Himself.

In academia among theologians this standard does not exist. Often scripture is determined to be clear on a subject without a direct reference to it.

In scripture we hold to the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no direct mention of the Trinity only clear scripture on each person within the Trinity.

Now we come to this doctrine and some who reject it for personal reasons want to create a false standard and then try to hold everyone else to that false standard. I can only imagine this is done so that they can feel more comfortable with their errant doctrine.

So God does plan to impose His wrath on the lost. Yet there are those who would have us believe that in order to make our sins right that wrath just goes away.

The suffering on the cross should be a clear picture of God's wrath to any reasonable person. The suffering of Jesus should be clearly understood as the wrath of God.

Yep another non response with no standard

Jon, Paul is extremely clear in 1 Corinthians 10.
It seems you are being resistant to scripture. Note that I am not creating something from nothing. Most covenant theologians point out what I have pointed out.
Did the people of Israel deserve the strike of God's judgment or did the rock deserve it?

Does Paul call that Rock Jesus?

Jon, Paul makes the connection and you stand against what Paul connects.

The Isaiah 53 passage says He was “smitten” of God for our transgressions and by His stripe we are healed. That is God punishing Him and “substitution” language.

You can disagree all day, which is fine, but it is intellectually dishonest to call PSA “extra-biblical” or a philosophy.

Jon, I provided that the rod is one of judgment. I showed how the rod is judgment upon the rock that the people deserved. Instead God poured out gracious water of life.
Clearly you don't want to make the connection that Paul intends for us to connect. We have finished our discussion.

 

pt2. these readers have not missed your error and double speak, no, they are on it like white on rice!
“For Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God….”

Believe God’s Word

How can you read that passage, “Christ died for sins, once for all, the just for the unjust…” and not see substitution?

Mind Boggling!!!

So when Isaiah, who spoke directly to God, and was under inspiration of God Holy Spirit said “We esteemed Him smitten of God…” he was having a perception problem understanding what God was revealing to him?

What else did he get wrong in the passage? What about “by His stripes you are cleansed?”

There is clearly some kind of substitution punishment going on there.

Wait a second!! Is it possible that “we esteemed Him smitten of God” was laying the foundation for “by His stripes you are cleansed”?

Of course it does, but Only if you actually attempt to understand the passage in the context it was written, without ignoring or dismissing everything that goes against what you believe.

The “just for the unjust” doesn’t mean “instead of”, it means “on behalf of”. Which is substitution.

“He was pierced through for our transgressions..” “He was crushed for our iniquities”

Do you see any substitution there?

And they seemed to insist that God's law is an expression of His nature and that is the reason it cannot be simply annulled by decree or relaxed. It is not a philosophical gyration to look at scripture and see that "wrath" is part of God's reaction to sin.

The Belgic Confession (A.D.1561) talks about Christ making satisfaction and bearing the punishment of sin by his bitter passion and death. It says that God manifested his justice against his Son when he laid our iniquities on him and poured fourth his mercy on us ...out of love. Actually, the word wrath is not used. I think the reason for this is explained in the confession in that God was "perfectly merciful and perfectly just".

 

reader comments part 3;
You have been given scripture. You simply dismiss it and say, “t’ant what it says”.

Isaiah 53 says He was pierced for our transgressions. Iconoclast just gave powerful explanation of the word “atonement”.

You simply refuse to believe what scripture clearly teaches and then accuse everyone else of believing extra biblical philosophy or some such attack.

That is fine, be convinced in your own mind.

I am amazed at the people who think seemingly the wrath of man poured out on Christ paid for our sin. Or we can be freed from the penalty of sin without someone taking the wrath we deserve.
Jon, how many angels can fit on the tip of a pin?
Personally, I couldn't care less what the technical name men have given to what Jesus did. What I care about is that Jesus blood was sufficient and effective to atone for my sin. I see that indeed it is and that Jesus satisfied the Father's requirement.
There is a legal obligation I could not fulfill. Jesus fulfilled that legal obligation on my behalf.
Whatever people want to call it and whatever petty nuance people want to nitpick at, is not my concern. My concern is that Christ is enough and by faith I believe he is.

The thing that would clearly help me would be for you to clearly state exactly what you believe the atonement did accomplish

John,
Using the verses without understanding the word meanings properly is not to have the verse.

wrath
atonement
redeemed
reconciled
propitiation
peace
bought with a price...
sacrifice
substitution
These have biblical meanings.
You gloss over them most recently in your "forbearance" postings.
You are suggesting that you and Agedman are among the few that can see it....while everyone on our bookshelves has not seen it.
I am staying with those on my bookshelf.
They have looked at all the verses also.
They see scripture clearly teaching PSA.
I gave a helpful link frpm Berkofs Systematic Theology.
I like that he displays how others tried to offer ideas that were also defective.
No one says Christ is not the victor.
He is.

The idea that the wrath of God being poured on Jesus isnt in scripture has been destroyed on this board. Simply saying scripture doesnt say that is not a defense of that position.
But Gods law, and Gods justice are not to be short changed to declare this.

Its not me who does not understand Gods justice, it is you

How does God overlook and cover up sin, yet still remain just? Something more than a cover up or looking the other way has to be done by a just judge.

How can sin be redeemed and the sinner be justified if the price of sin is not paid?

How can justification occur if the person is still guilty and the price is not paid.

You are not addressing the issue. Essentially you seem to think that God wrote the law, but doesn't hold himself responsible to judge according to the law he created.

Agedman, you are trying to explain away the scripture and ultimately express that God is not just.
I know you would never say that about God so I can only conclude you simply aren't thinking through the ramifications of your present position.
In Christ we are freed from condemnation. How were we set free from that condemnation, John. How is it that we are found in Christ?

God gave the law and it is the law that condemns us. The wages of that law breaking required the sentence of death. God the Son didn't die because of what he did. He died because of what I did.

Jon, I bolded and posted in red the statement that comes across as graceless, works based, salvation. You stated:
"If we do not die to the flesh then we also will face God's wrath.

But if we do die to the flesh, if we are born again,"

Jon, we were dead in our trespasses and sins. God's wrath was upon us. But God made us alive with Christ. By grace we were saved.

Our salvation is entirely by God's gracious choice.
Jon, if sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain, of what value is the sacrificial system that God ordered for Israel. It seems you are trying to make God's word null and void of any purpose.
Please share that verse that says our sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain.

Jon, neither of these two verses say anything to support your claim that our sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain. How do you extract anything close to your assertion from those two verses? They have nothing to do with your assertion. Are these actually the verses you are using as your reason for the view you hold?
These verses are for Christians. Followers of Christ. I find your prooftexts very odd.

Once again, these verses do not support your assertion.

As to your last paragraph, it is clear you have constructed a position with no biblical support. Take your own advice.

Jon, you have simply made baseless claims in your post.
I have provided both Old Testament foreshadowing and then connected it to New Testament, not by any philosophy, but purely because the New Testament writers do the connecting for us.
When you have addressed me, you have provided no legitimate proof text from the Bible. Therefore, it seems obvious you are openly guilty of what you have accused me of doing. Nowhere do you make a solid biblical case for whatever your mystery theory is.