Featured Where did the wrath of God go?

The book that I have read is the Bibke. But no, I stopped reading works of men as an authority.

There is a reason my view here is the main Christian view. There is a reason it predates your theory by over 15 centuries. It is the si.ple understanding of the text of Scripture. Within this understanding there are debatable views, but it is the Christian faith.

I read after working out my faith to make sure I had not developed a unique view (then I woukd have suspected error....a failure John Calvin should have realized). I found that the Early Church, Anabaptist Theology, and even Reformed scholars (the ones involved in seeking a more biblical position of the cross within Reformed thrology) confirm my view. This did serve as a type of confirmation. But the greater confirmation is Scripture (that I can see it teaches "what is written" rather than the theories I once shared with you).


If you need evidence, consider how you called 2 passages "error" before realizing they were passages. Consider @Iconoclast 's failure on this thread.

 

Sorry, I missed the last part.

But yes, the passage you provided does explain why one must be born again.

God did not save us by providing somebody to take our punishment instead of us (this is not in the Bible).

Instead :

The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

 

This is a false accusation.


I have not relied on any anabaptist theologian.

Look through my posts. I quoted Scripture. I did not rely on Anabaptist theologians. I am not Anabaptist.

You are having a tantrum. Calm down and let's look at Scripture.

What happens to a person when they are reborn?
What sins are committed in the Spirit?
What happens to the "old" us (the flesh)?

There is no need for the wrath of God to go anywhere.

The passage @AustinC said was an error....that this was God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.....is only an error if your theory is correct.

 

The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

We have a passage @AustinC and I agree on.

But this answers where the wrath went. God saves man not by punishment but by requiring the man be recreated. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

What Penal Substitution Theory focuses on is wrath. But not wrath in terms of God saving men. Instead it focuses on God needing to punish. God saved us not by pouring out wrath on the unjust but by recreating the unjust snd making them just.

 

But, to be honest, you are wrong. The two books that had the most influence in changing my mind were not noncanonical (they were Psalms, particularly Psalm 22, and Isaiah, particularly Isaiah 53).

I do not question Jesus as our substitute. This is simply not in the Bible so I dismissed it without question. Scripture teaches that Jesus is our representative (as the "Last Adam") just as Adam was a representative.

What I have done was provide you the opportunity to post verses thar actually supported your theories. You could only provide verses and a meaning that included ideas absent the passages you provided.

We do not have to believe the same. We're it a matter of interpretation we could talk about that. But it isn't. The idea that God has to pu is sin (apart from this bring a punishment of the actually sinner) is not in Scripture. Neither is the idea that Christ experienced God's wrath. Neither is the idea of Christ as a substitute.

 

You are making assumptions. What I believe is that rebirth is being born of the Spirit and made alive in Christ. I believe in Christ there is no condemnation.

So that takes care of your strawman argument.

BUT you teach more than Christ crucified, more than what has been given in God's Word (you add that Christ is our substitute, that God punished Him, that He experienced Hod's wrath instead of us, and that God is somehow do needy and weak that He punishes sins apart from the actual sinner.

The crux of the issue is being born again is meaningless to your theory of redemption because you run back to the Law as the mode of our salvation.

 

I did answer why men must be born again. @Aaron n is right in that being born of the Spirit, in Christ, plays a central role to my view of redemption as I see this as God being just and the justifier of sinners.

You are not grasping the argument. You are welcome to believe I am incorrect, but somehow you have missed my replies entirely.

I am glad to see you agree that there is a difference between what Scripture teaches and what the Reformed teach. This is a start.

And I absolutely agree with you. The Reformed do not teach Scrioture when it comes to this topic.

But this does not mean they have nothing of value to say. One of my favorites is Jonathan Edward's. John Owen is another.

But they are not authorities and, as you have observed, do depart from Scripture.

Good. Let's look at your previous belief.

At the time you rejected Penal Substitution Theory, exactly where did you believe God's wrath went? How was God just and the justifier of sinners?

 

Frankly I do not care what you believe.

Those are my references, what first pointed UT that Penal Substitution Theory was wrong.

I told you of why I questioned the theory. The very first places I went to prove the Theory correct were Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

I wrote out the entire passages snd erased anything that did not present Christ as our substitute, experiencing God's wrath instead of us.

Rather than calling my integrity into question (something I have not done to ypu) why don't you try it?

Write out the passages. Do not explain them but simply erase ant part that does not say Christ died instead of us. Then erase any part that does mot say Christ experienced God's wrath. There will be nothing left.

It is not by coincidence that your view is rejected by most Christians. It is not an accident that you hold a minority view.

I am starting to see that you just cannot understand how so many Christians throughout history missed what you can only see. It is because you are reading into the text.

 

The only part of your theory I think is wrong is what you add to God's Word.

I know the prohibition against adding to Scripture technically applies to Revelation, but nevertheless those who teach others will be held to a greater accountability.

For this reason, when we speak of foundational doctrines I believe in sticking closer to what is written in Scripture than you will allow.

I do not hold it against you that you consider Penal Substitution Theory as being taught by Scripture.

But you and I hold a different standard when it comes to testing doctrines. And that is fine. This is actually the reason I can never accept the Theory again (for decades I read into Scripture, so there was a conflict between what I believed regarding testing doctrine and the doctrine I held at the time).

 

Kinda. But not in the Penal Substitution Theory context. If Penal Substitution Theory were correct then there would be no necessity to the rebirth.

It is by Christ's death that man was reconciled to God, and by His life that we are saved. Man has been reconciled to God, therefore we plea that men be reconciled.