The Biblical Propitiation Of God's Wrath, and PSA.

[Brightfame52]

No, I understand propitiation. It is something that turns aside wrath or anger.

You miss what I was saying.

You are not talking about propitiation but about sins being propitiated.

Read the verse and pay attention to the tenses of the words.

Christ Himself is the Propitiation.
Men have their sins propitiated.
In Him we escape the wrath to come.

By His Death those He died for escape the wrath to come. If He did not die for you then you will not escape the wrath to come

I am not saying your doctrine is wrong (or right, for that matter).

You are talking about propitiation in general.

I am talking about 1 Jn 2:2.

If we replace what John is saying in the verse, even with something that is true, then we miss what John is saying.

The "so" in John 3:16 means "thusly", or "in this way". God loved the World in this way, He sent His Son.
People have confused the "so" with a quality- God loved the World so much...

It is not false to speak of God's great love. BUT when we misinteroret the "so" as a quality we miss what John is saying even though what we say is true.

Same with 1 Jn 2:2.

Verse 1 telks us that if we sin Jesus is our Advocate.
Verse 2 identifies Jesus Himself as the Propitiation.

Even in John 3:16 the world God so loved He saved it through Christ read verse 17 so that limits the scope of who the world is, it can't be those who are lost under the wrath of God.

And God's great love actually saved them He so loved read Ephesians 2:4-5 what does it say about His great love?

I think you may have missed my point.

If you read "so" in John 3:16 as "so much" you end up with a truth that is stated in other verses but you miss what John 3:16 means.

I have not argued against the fact rhat Christ gave His life for His sheep.

I am simply saying that 1 Jn 2:2 is saying something you are missing - not that your overall theology is wrong (or right).

Even if you read something that is biblical, that is true and correct doctrine, into a verse you would be missing what that verse is actually saying. What is said may be just as impirtant as the truth read into the passage.

I think you are imagining things

Lol....no, I am reading it.

John makes the point that if you sin you have an Advocate in Christ, and Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

Jesus is our Advocate (in Hebrews, our Mediator) who advocates for us based not on us or what we have or will do but based on Himself (His identity and work). He IS the Propitiation.

I know you don't not believe that to be true.

And I am not sure what, if not Jesus Himself, you believe to be the propitiation for your sins, but whatever it is it is not good enough. Christ alone is Himself the Propitiation for our sins.

You far out friend.

Lol....I know you are just messing around, and it is fun (I know you are not that illiterate).

You know how that sentence actually reads. You just do not want to admit it on the public forum.

I do not really know if it is pride, that you simply can't admit you read into the passage, courage that you do not mind looking stupid, ignorance that you struggle with the structure of the English language, or thst you (like me) are just passing time.

But anybody reading this, who is familiar with sentence structure, knows that "He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins" is calling Jesus Christ the Propitiation for our sins.

Or expiation, or atoning sacrifice....depending on interpretation. But it is obvious that John is identifying Jesus as the ἱλασμός.

Well you are very good sending out a barrage of insults

 

[JonC]

By His Death those He died for escape the wrath to come. If He did not die for you then you will not escape the wrath to come

I am not saying your doctrine is wrong (or right, for that matter).

You are talking about propitiation in general.

I am talking about 1 Jn 2:2.

If we replace what John is saying in the verse, even with something that is true, then we miss what John is saying.

The "so" in John 3:16 means "thusly", or "in this way". God loved the World in this way, He sent His Son.
People have confused the "so" with a quality- God loved the World so much...

It is not false to speak of God's great love. BUT when we misinteroret the "so" as a quality we miss what John is saying even though what we say is true.

Same with 1 Jn 2:2.

Verse 1 telks us that if we sin Jesus is our Advocate.
Verse 2 identifies Jesus Himself as the Propitiation.

Even in John 3:16 the world God so loved He saved it through Christ read verse 17 so that limits the scope of who the world is, it can't be those who are lost under the wrath of God.

And God's great love actually saved them He so loved read Ephesians 2:4-5 what does it say about His great love?

I think you may have missed my point.

If you read "so" in John 3:16 as "so much" you end up with a truth that is stated in other verses but you miss what John 3:16 means.

I have not argued against the fact rhat Christ gave His life for His sheep.

I am simply saying that 1 Jn 2:2 is saying something you are missing - not that your overall theology is wrong (or right).

Even if you read something that is biblical, that is true and correct doctrine, into a verse you would be missing what that verse is actually saying. What is said may be just as impirtant as the truth read into the passage.

You far out friend.

Lol....I know you are just messing around, and it is fun (I know you are not that illiterate).

You know how that sentence actually reads. You just do not want to admit it on the public forum.

I do not really know if it is pride, that you simply can't admit you read into the passage, courage that you do not mind looking stupid, ignorance that you struggle with the structure of the English language, or thst you (like me) are just passing time.

But anybody reading this, who is familiar with sentence structure, knows that "He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins" is calling Jesus Christ the Propitiation for our sins.

Or expiation, or atoning sacrifice....depending on interpretation. But it is obvious that John is identifying Jesus as the ἱλασμός.

Well you are very good sending out a barrage of insults

No, I assumed that you were joking (that is what I said) and listed other possible options.

I know that you realize "He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins" is saying "Jesus Christ is the Propitiation for our sins". You were just denying that, disagreeing, in fun.

 

[JesusFan]

The mean of the word "propitiation is to turn aside or avoid something, particularly wrath or anger. I think this is evident in that it is in Christ we "escape the wrath to come". Jesus IS the Propitiation for the sins of the Wirld (the ONLY Propitiation).

But it is one thing to speak of propitiation and another entirely to speak of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Penal Substitution Theory does not focus on propitiation but on a way the theory thinks wrath is turned from the wicked (by turning it to God's "Righteous One").

It would be an error to ignore Christ as the Propitiation for our sins, but it would be an equally abhorrent error to twist Scripture to fit the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

You find the biblical concept of the Lamb of God taking upon himself as our sin bearer the wrath and condemnation due to all of us then as being abhorrent and pagan?

But what about truth?

Here you offer Albert Maryin and John Murray vs God's Word. Some will offer the Book of Mormon vs God's Word. Others Elken White vs God's Word.

We are Christians. Why the distain for Scripture? If Penal Substitution Theory were important and correct would it not be in "what is written???

Its in the bible, see isaiah 53, Romans, Galatians, etc

I have offered Scripture. You simply did not recognize it as Scripture (I just used quotation marks).

That said, I have not stated my view.....all I stated of my belief was that God is faithful to forgive those who repent (Ezekiel 18, Acts 3, 1 John 1, 2 Peter 3, . . .).

You have without any Scripture supporting your philosophy. You provided verses but then went on to state your theory which is unrelated to the verses you provided.

Bit I will give you a chance -

Provide a verse stating Jesus died instead of us.
Provide a verse stating Jesus experienced God's wrath.
Provide a verse stating that God cannot forgive sins based on repentance and belief.


I know you can find those things in the writings of the men you follow, but I do not recognize those men as the authority for my faith. Use the Bible.


Yes, I know both English and Greek. In both cases, both speak of Chriat.

While I studied Greek at the graduate level, I am mot sure you have. So let's just look at the English.

Here is the passage in question:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Now, in the English language (and the Grerk) the topic is Christ as the Propitiation, not those who benefit from the propitiation. You should have picked up on this with the first verse (we have an Advocate, who IS the Propitiation for sins).

I get that English may be your second language. If so, I encourage you to get a transkation in your own language.

What you did was read into the passage by making assumptions. You want it to say something ir dies not say, so you pretend it does.

If English is your first language, and you simply struggle with the fundamental parts of the language (nouns, verbs, etc) then take the time to diagram sentences. Identify the subject, the adverbs, etc. It may help you to write them out (we had to in school).

If you the your time, diagram the sentences, identify the subject, etc. it may help you keep from making such elementary mistakes.


No, you are confused. The Apostolic Church is the church that existed during the time of the Apostles. They taught what was written in Scripture. The theories you are talking about came much later.

Anselm developed Substitution Theory which was focused on Jedus restoring the honor man robbed of God. Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory, replacing honor with merit.

Aquinas want a bit more in detail. Until Aquinas nobody entertained the idea that Jesus could be punished instead of sinners. Aquinas developed a system where (he believed) an innocent person could justly be punished insteadbof a guilty person provided both parties were willing and the punishment was not the punishment due the crime committed.

Calvin (a lawyer by education) reformed Aquinas' theory by replacing merit with justice, and satisfactory punishment with simple punishment.

All three were based on Augustines error. Augustine developed what became the Catholic doctrine of sin. But this was based on the Vulgate which mistranslated "eph hō" as "in quo".


History is important. As you demonstrate with your ignorance of history (which is strange as we have the documdnts) is that by ignoring history it repeats itself.

This is why you can only rely on writings of mem who write what you believe rather than God's Word.


I may interpret some passages incorrectly, but at least I am sticking to Scripture.


Thank you for the information. I am more interested, however, in what God said.

Jehovah Witnesses believe their theologians correct. Mormons believe their theologians correct. I get that you believe the men you follow are correct in their additions to Scripture.

I have no issue with much of what you have posted.

The issue I have is when what you posted teaches unbiblical ideas.

For example -

We all believe that Christ died for our sins and we were purchased by His blood.

But Penal Substitution theorists merely use that truth to prop up their theory. They change it to Jesus dying instead of us, suffering God's wrath, etc.

That is not exposition. That is eisegesis.

Penal Substitution Theory adds to Scripture. The theory was created via reforming another theory (which h was created by reforming another theory).

Try reading the Bible without using the theory. What is actually written in God's Word is complete and makes sence. All Penal Substitution Theory does is offer a theory which os different from Scripture and different from traditional Chriatianity.

I can say your theory is unbiblical because it is foreign to the actual text of Scripture.

You cannot say my position is unbiblical because it is what is written in Scripture.


Years ago I discussed this and was condemned for using too much Scripture without adding to it
The charge was "all you do is quote the Bible". Guilty as charged.

It is not my fault that penal substitution theorists believe Scripture does not make sense. The Spirit guides those of us who believe and opens up Scripture - not bia exposition but by a realization Scripture itself makes sence. Even though interpretations differ we rely on God's Word (different focuses and interpretations of some verses).
You need to use more honest words than exposition. Penal Substitution Theory adds what is not there and denies what is there.

By what basis can God remain Holy and save lost sinners though? Where and when how did our their sin debt obligation go away?

Lol....no, I am reading it.

John makes the point that if you sin you have an Advocate in Christ, and Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

Jesus is our Advocate (in Hebrews, our Mediator) who advocates for us based not on us or what we have or will do but based on Himself (His identity and work). He IS the Propitiation.

I know you don't not believe that to be true.

And I am not sure what, if not Jesus Himself, you believe to be the propitiation for your sins, but whatever it is it is not good enough. Christ alone is Himself the Propitiation for our sins.

he became our very sin offering as the very wrath of the Father against our sins were placed upon Him in full

That is not what 1 Jn 2:2 says.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John telks us (Christians) that he writes so that we may not sin.
BUT if we do we have an Advocate wirh the Father.
Jesus Christ is our Advocate.
He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

I do not know which verse you are quoting, but it is not 1 John 2:2.

What passage is it?

2 Corinthians 5"21
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[JonC]

You find the biblical concept of the Lamb of God taking upon himself as our sin bearer the wrath and condemnation due to all of us then as being abhorrent and pagan?

I am saying that in 1 Jn 2:2 the word "Propitiation" is referring to Jesus Himself. The actual Greek word can mean expiation, propitiation, or atoning sacrifice. But it is speaking specifically of Jesus Himself. Verse 1 deals witg those who are in Christ have an Advocate in Him.

Its in the bible, see isaiah 53, Romans, Galatians, etc

Except it isn't. People like yo say "it's cover to cover" or pick a book or the favorite Isaiah 53. But when it comes down to it, they can never find the passage that states Jesus experienced God's wrath instead of us.

By what basis can God remain Holy and save lost sinners though? Where and when how did our their sin debt obligation go away?

The only "debt obligation" mentioned is the Mosaic Law as a "certificate of debt". This was fulfilled by Christ and "nailed to a tree".

God's wrath "abides on the wicked." They will be "cast into the Lake of fire" (the "Second Death").

God can remain holy because God IS Holy. We are made "new creations", we "die to the flesh", "share in His death" are "made alive in the Spirit", God "removes our heart of stone and gives us a new heart", He "removes our old spirit and gives us a new spirit", He "puts His Spirit in us".

If you are wicked at Judgment then God's wrath will be on you and you will be cast into the Lake of Fire.
If you have been "purified" made "a new creation", "died to the flesh" then you are mot wicked and you will live.

I get the desire for an "easy-believism" faith. But it is wrong.

I think you are imagining things

Lol....no, I am reading it.

John makes the point that if you sin you have an Advocate in Christ, and Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

Jesus is our Advocate (in Hebrews, our Mediator) who advocates for us based not on us or what we have or will do but based on Himself (His identity and work). He IS the Propitiation.

I know you don't not believe that to be true.

And I am not sure what, if not Jesus Himself, you believe to be the propitiation for your sins, but whatever it is it is not good enough. Christ alone is Himself the Propitiation for our sins.

he became our very sin offering as the very wrath of the Father against our sins were placed upon Him in full

That is not what 1 Jn 2:2 says.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John telks us (Christians) that he writes so that we may not sin.
BUT if we do we have an Advocate wirh the Father.
Jesus Christ is our Advocate.
He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

I do not know which verse you are quoting, but it is not 1 John 2:2.

What passage is it?

2 Corinthians 5"21
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness

I take it you interpret "sin" in the passage to mean "sin offering", which is a legitimate interpretation.

But where do you see "as the very wrath of the Father against our sins were placed upon Him in full"" in the verse????

What translation are you using?

 

[Dave G]

So far in this thread I see a lot of what men have written about the Bible on the subject, and men who reason through the Scriptures to a conclusion that seems obvious to them,...
But I've not seen anything yet that would definitively convince me that God's wrath, which I see was never directed against His elect ( only His love was ), was ever laid upon the Lord Jesus at the cross.

Only our sins were.

Yes, He was made sin for us, I agree.
Yes, God was pleased to bruise Him for our sake.
Yes, He was pierced, suffered shame and was made a mockery for us.

But nowhere in any of the posts have I yet seen, have there been any Scriptural declarations answering whether or not God the Father actually laid any of His wrath upon His Son.

I also see quite a bit of arguing back and forth ... but no Scripture outright declaring that the Lord bore the wrath that was supposedly directed at His people for their sins.
Has there been any "building a case" in favor of PSA?
Yes, and that's something I've seen well-respected preachers doing on just about every doctrine of God's word that there is.

But until someone can demonstrate to me where the Lord tells us that "Christ bore our wrath", then to me it's still just a theory;
Granted, one I was convinced of not all that long ago, but now, not so much.

 

[Brightfame52]

So far in this thread I see a lot of what men have written about the Bible on the subject, and men who reason through the Scriptures to a conclusion that seems obvious to them,...
But I've not seen anything yet that would definitively convince me that God's wrath, which I see was never directed against His elect ( only His love was ), was ever laid upon the Lord Jesus at the cross.

Only our sins were.

Yes, He was made sin for us, I agree.
Yes, God was pleased to bruise Him for our sake.
Yes, He was pierced, suffered shame and was made a mockery for us.

But nowhere in any of the posts have I yet seen, have there been any Scriptural declarations answering whether or not God the Father actually laid any of His wrath upon His Son.

I also see quite a bit of arguing back and forth ... but no Scripture outright declaring that the Lord bore the wrath that was supposedly directed at His people for their sins.
Has there been any "building a case" in favor of PSA?
Yes, and that's something I've seen well-respected preachers doing on just about every doctrine of God's word that there is.

But until someone can demonstrate to me where the Lord tells us that "Christ bore our wrath", then to me it's still just a theory;
Granted, one I was convinced of not all that long ago, but now, not so much.

I don't think you have to see the word wrath dave, but the point is what He did suffer and endure for the sins of the elect satisfied God's wrath towards them ,they don't have to face wrath which otherwise they would. You do believe those Christ did not die for will suffer God's wrath right?

Another thing to consider (along with no actual passage telling us Jesus experienced God's wrath) is the fact that nobody believed Jesus experienced God's wrath for most of Christian history.

This alone is not proof, but it (along with the fact that many views exist....only one holding Jesus experienced God's wrath) does prove that it is not something evident in Scripture itself.

The most common view (one I do not hold) is that Christ satisfied what man lost by merit through His obedience to die at the hands of the wicked.

More importantly, IMHO, is that we cannot expect better treatment by God than He treated Jesus. If God was willing to pour His wrath on "His Elect", His "Righteous One", then we have no hope.

Do you believe the unredeemed by Christ will undergo and suffer wrath from God for their sins ? Like Eph 5 3-6

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Those He died for have been delivered from wrath

1 Thess 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

How did Jesus deliver us from the wrath to come ?

 

[JonC]

So far in this thread I see a lot of what men have written about the Bible on the subject, and men who reason through the Scriptures to a conclusion that seems obvious to them,...
But I've not seen anything yet that would definitively convince me that God's wrath, which I see was never directed against His elect ( only His love was ), was ever laid upon the Lord Jesus at the cross.

Only our sins were.

Yes, He was made sin for us, I agree.
Yes, God was pleased to bruise Him for our sake.
Yes, He was pierced, suffered shame and was made a mockery for us.

But nowhere in any of the posts have I yet seen, have there been any Scriptural declarations answering whether or not God the Father actually laid any of His wrath upon His Son.

I also see quite a bit of arguing back and forth ... but no Scripture outright declaring that the Lord bore the wrath that was supposedly directed at His people for their sins.
Has there been any "building a case" in favor of PSA?
Yes, and that's something I've seen well-respected preachers doing on just about every doctrine of God's word that there is.

But until someone can demonstrate to me where the Lord tells us that "Christ bore our wrath", then to me it's still just a theory;
Granted, one I was convinced of not all that long ago, but now, not so much.

Another thing to consider (along with no actual passage telling us Jesus experienced God's wrath) is the fact that nobody believed Jesus experienced God's wrath for most of Christian history.

This alone is not proof, but it (along with the fact that many views exist....only one holding Jesus experienced God's wrath) does prove that it is not something evident in Scripture itself.

The most common view (one I do not hold) is that Christ satisfied what man lost by merit through His obedience to die at the hands of the wicked.

More importantly, IMHO, is that we cannot expect better treatment by God than He treated Jesus. If God was willing to pour His wrath on "His Elect", His "Righteous One", then we have no hope.

Jesus suffered and died. We will die. God raised Jesus to life. We will have that same deliverance in Him. Rather than focusing on God's wrath, why not focus on God's deliverance?

 

[Dave G]

Another thing to consider (along with no actual passage telling us Jesus experienced God's wrath) is the fact that nobody believed Jesus experienced God's wrath for most of Christian history.

I don't care about"most of Christian history" Jon.
I only care about what God's word says.

For example, if billions of people who all profess Christ tell me that an infant who has never come to realize that they are a sinner and casts his or her hope upon Jesus Christ as Saviour during the preaching of God's word can be baptized, washing away all their sins...
And Scripture says different, then their "history" means nothing to me.

That's why "orthodoxy" has absolutely no effect on what I believe, either.

That stated, I'll get to the point:
Just because a majority of those who have professed Christ over the centuries have agreed or "established precedent" on a matter, should in no way influence how I read and understand God's word for myself one way or the other.
Just because, for example, John Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church or anyone else was known to have sponsored murder... should not prejudice me for or against any doctrine...whether true or false.

Whether or not it's true or false should be determined by how I read and understand God's word for myself.
Each and every one of us has only one person that must be persuaded of the truth or error of anything...
Ourself.

Anything outside of just me agreeing with me, I've found to be a blessing.

As I see it, PSA has been observed by some very well-respected and learned men out of a host of Scriptural passages over the years, but is not absolutely declared anywhere.
That so many agree with it is not my concern...
That Scripture outright declares it, I have yet to see.

Until then, no matter how many people outnumber me on it, I still will not be convinced until I see it for myself.

 

[JonC]

I don't care about"most of Christian history" Jon.
I only care about what God's word says.

For example, if billions of people who all profess Christ tell me that an infant who has never come to realize that they are a sinner and casts his or her hope upon Jesus Christ as Saviour during the preaching of God's word can be baptized, washing away all their sins...
And Scripture says different, then their "history" means nothing to me.

That's why "orthodoxy" has absolutely no effect on what I believe, either.

That stated, I'll get to the point:
Just because a majority of those who have professed Christ over the centuries have agreed or "established precedent" on a matter, should in no way influence how I read and understand God's word for myself one way or the other.
Just because, for example, John Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church or anyone else was known to have sponsored murder... should not prejudice me for or against any doctrine...whether true or false.

Whether or not it's true or false should be determined by how I read and understand God's word for myself.
Each and every one of us has only one person that must be persuaded of the truth or error of anything...
Ourself.

Anything outside of just me agreeing with me, I've found to be a blessing.

As I see it, PSA has been observed by some very well-respected and learned men out of a host of Scriptural passages over the years, but is not absolutely declared anywhere.
That so many agree with it is not my concern...
That Scripture outright declares it, I have yet to see.

Until then, no matter how many people outnumber me on it, I still will not be convinced until I see it for myself.

I agree history does not dictate what we believe. Like I said, I disagree with the majority Vhriatian view (Satisfaction Theory).

The difference, I think, is that I do belueve we have to set aside our own opinions/ understandings and lean on God's Word. That is why I can no longer agree with the Penal Substitution Theory of.

I can nit find in thGod's Word any passage saying that Jesus experienced God's wrath.
I cannot find any passage stating that God abandoned Jesus when He hung on the Criss.
I cannot find any passage that states Jesus died for our sins instead of us.
I cannot find any passage that states God transferred our sins from us and put them on Jesus.
I cannot find any passage that states that God punished the righteous.

Any one of those are enough to reject Penal Substitution Theory.


But I will give you this....if you can show me a verse that states Jesus suffered God's wrath instead of us then I will concede I was wrong to abandon the theory. But absent Scripture, I will not be persuaded as I will lean on God's Word.

I grant that I could misinterpret a text, but it will be a misinterpretation of the actual text and not what somebody thinks is taught by the text.

 

[Dave G]

How did Jesus deliver us from the wrath to come ?

BF, I realize that you were addressing JonC here, but I'd like to throw in if I'm allowed to.

Answer:
By making propitiation for the sins that those who are not God's elect, will suffer His wrath for.
My friend, God being provoked to anger is what makes Him willing to show wrath.
But since He loved each and every one of His elect while they were still enemies in their hearts and in their minds, then there was no wrath to appease.

Are those who support this teaching absolutely sure that PSA isn't coming from somewhere else besides the Scriptures?

The Lord Jesus didn't "stand in our place" or "take our punishment" on the cross;
He took upon Himself our sins, so that no one of God's elect would ever have to face His wrath and eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.
Just as salvation is not a "potential", but a sure thing, so was God's love for His people from before the foundation of the world.
It was a done deal way before you or I ever existed.

So how could God ever be angry about something that He was always going to graciously cast behind Him as far as east is from west, because of His grace and mercy towards us?

I'll need to see Scripture that declares that God was ever angry with His own spiritual people, before I even begin to agree.

 

[JonC]

Do you believe the unredeemed by Christ will undergo and suffer wrath from God for their sins ? Like Eph 5 3-6

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Those He died for have been delivered from wrath

1 Thess 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

How did Jesus deliver us from the wrath to come ?

Yes, I believe those who remain lost will suffer the wrath to come.

I believe that Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come by His obedience. "In Him we escape the wrath to come". Jesus died under the powers of sin and death ("sin produces death"). But Jesus did not sin and was obedient even unto death. God raised Jesus, have Him a name above every name.

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. I believe that Jesus died and was judged righteous.

We escape the wrath to come by being "transformed into the image of Christ", being "born of the Spirit", "made alive in Christ", "made a new creation".

Jesus "became a lufe giving Spirit", we share in His death (death to the flesh) and will share in His resurrection (His life).

 

[Dave G]

I can nit find in thGod's Word any passage saying that Jesus experienced God's wrath.
I cannot find any passage stating that God abandoned Jesus when He hung on the Criss.
I cannot find any passage that states Jesus died for our sins instead of us.
I cannot find any passage that states God transferred our sins from us and put them on Jesus.
I cannot find any passage that states that God punished the righteous.

Any one of those are enough to reject Penal Substitution Theory.

Agreed, except for the one I've highlighted.
That one I see clearly:

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."( Isaiah 53:6 ).

" who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." ( 1 Peter 2:24 )

" And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." ( Hebrews 9:27-28 )

" He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." ( Isaiah 53:11 ).


Each and every sin that we are guilty of, He bore in His body on the tree.
"Transferred" vs "bare" or "took on" / "took upon Himself"?

It's the same meaning to me.

 

[Brightfame52]

BF, I realize that you were addressing JonC here, but I'd like to throw in if I'm allowed to.

Answer:
By making propitiation for the sins that those who are not God's elect, will suffer His wrath for.
My friend, God being provoked to anger is what makes Him willing to show wrath.
But since He loved each and every one of His elect while they were still enemies in their hearts and in their minds, then there was no wrath to appease.

Are those who support this teaching absolutely sure that PSA isn't coming from somewhere else besides the Scriptures?

The Lord Jesus didn't "stand in our place" or "take our punishment" on the cross;
He took upon Himself our sins, so that no one of God's elect would ever have to face His wrath and eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.
Just as salvation is not a "potential", but a sure thing, so was God's love for His people from before the foundation of the world.
It was a done deal way before you or I ever existed.

So how could God ever be angry about something that He was always going to graciously cast behind Him as far as east is from west, because of His grace and mercy towards us?

I'll need to see Scripture that declares that God was ever angry with His own spiritual people, before I even begin to agree.

So God was not angry at the sins of the elect? Now I do believe the elect were never under God's wrath or condemnation you should know that from Reading me over the years however He is angry with sin even the sins of the elect. It's kind of a simple concept to me if the non-elect will experience God's wrath because of their sins see Ephesians chapter 5:6 , the elect would be in the same boat if Christ had not died for their sins.

Furthermore I believe you are in error saying the Lord Jesus didn't stand in our place or take our punishment on the cross, how do you understand Isaiah 53: 5,10

Yes, I believe those who remain lost will suffer the wrath to come.

I believe that Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come by His obedience. "In Him we escape the wrath to come". Jesus died under the powers of sin and death ("sin produces death"). But Jesus did not sin and was obedient even unto death. God raised Jesus, have Him a name above every name.

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. I believe that Jesus died and was judged righteous.

We escape the wrath to come by being "transformed into the image of Christ", being "born of the Spirit", "made alive in Christ", "made a new creation".

Jesus "became a lufe giving Spirit", we share in His death (death to the flesh) and will share in His resurrection (His life).

You know why they remain lost? Because Christ did not die for their sins!

 

[JonC]

Agreed, except for the one I've highlighted.
That one I see clearly:

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."( Isaiah 53:6 ).

" who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." ( 1 Peter 2:24 )

" And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." ( Hebrews 9:27-28 )

" He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." ( Isaiah 53:11 ).


Each and every sin that we are guilty of, He bore in His body on the tree.
"Transferred" vs "bare" or "took on" / "took upon Himself"?

It's the same meaning to me.

Here is what I was talking about before - interpretation vs addition.

What you do is interpret the text. I do as well. Since we both have the passage in common we can discuss our differences in interpretation and perhaps understand one another even if we disagree.


I interpret the verse to mean that God laid our sins on Jesus (without removing them from us).

There are several reasons I believe this, and I will try to quickly hit the main ones.

The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), for sin produces death (James 1:15). Death spread to all because all have sinned (Romans 5:12). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. (Heb 9:27). I believe that God became man (truely man) like us but without sin (Heb 4:15). He bore our sins bodily on the cross (1 Peter 2:24).

I believe this speaks of Jesus becoming one of us, suffering under the bondage of sin and death, but that this is the bondage we sufferer under for our sins. He became like us (suffering under, taking upon Himself the wages our sins, with us )so that we would become like Him (glorified with His glory, with Him).

The larger picture is that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:23). The second statement (the gift of God) does not nullify the first (the wages of sin), because sin produces death (James 1:15). But it does remove the sting of death (1 Cor 15:55) because although we die yet shall we live (John 11:25).

I welcome your critique of my view. I believe we can learn from one another even if we do not agree. Criticisms of my position can only make my position stronger, either by correction or confirmation.


I am also interested in how you arrive at your position, if you want to discuss your view.

 

[JonC]

You know why they remain lost? Because Christ did not die for their sins!

I kniw they remain lost because they reject the Light for their deeds are evil (John 3:19).

What verse are you referencing?