Did Jesus suffer God's wrath instead of us?

[JonC]

Dont need that sound bite, He propitiated God for the sins of the elect He died for. If He didnt do that, they would be under wrath for their sins as the rest of mankind. The word propitate hilasmos means:

1. an appeasing, propitiating
2. the means of appeasing, a propitiation

Strong's Greek: 2434. ἱλασμός (hilasmos) -- Propitiation, Atoning Sacrifice

Again, you are straying from God's Word.

Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins.
As our God sent Jesus to be the Propitiation for our sins.
High Priest Jesus made propitiation in behalf of (sonce you prefer that onstead of "for" our sins).

Nothing in the Bible says that Jesus is the Propitiation for only the sins of the elect.
You are forgetting the Judgment (which has been given to the Son).

We escape the wrath of God.

But God is not like the pagan gods or luje a child that His wrath can be apoeased. His wrath is ALWAYS against tge wicked.

 

[JesusFan]

I am starting this thread for room. On a thread about to close due to length @Martin Marprelate claimed he would provide passages stating his belief.

Since a kep point of his faith is God punishing our sins laid on Jesus, Jesus experiencing God's wrath against sin, instead of us, I thought this would be a good place to start.

Why? Because if what Jesus suffered was not God's wrath against our sins then his entire theory is nullified.

Now, I know people can start with that idea and then go to the Bible and say "thats what it really teaches". BUT we can do that with any heresy as well.

So I am interested in the passages @Martin Marprelate (and others) have found in the text of S ripture si.ply stating Jesus suffered God's wrath. I think this is a good start.

Have you not already though judged PST as being a pagan concept, and that would not be fair to have Jesus suffer due to our sins, as he committed none? That Jesus died due to the world system, and evil in world, and not due to God the father directly causing that to happen?

I am sorry, brother, for my lack of clarity.

I understand that men think the Bible teaches different things. I understand that some think it teaches that Jesus suffered God's wrath (I once would have agreed). Men think the Bible teaches all kinds of diverse ideas.

I was asking for actual passages stating that theory.

The whole reason I asked is because I have come to realize that the Bible teaches "what is written" (the actual text of Scripture).

You keep on rejecting clear passages that affirm Pst though

I believe "what is written" ("every word that cometh forth from God") rather than "leaning on my own understanding".

What passage are you speaking of?

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and as part of that, Jesus took upon Himself that dread bowl of wrath the father had been storing up against our sin

The reason I asked is that there are so many ways of taking the question.

I believe that Jesus died as a representative substitute (like headship) insofar as He is the "Second Adam" (between Adam and Christ, He is the Last Adam and Adam was the First Adam).

I believe that Jesus died for our sins, was made sin for us.

I also believe that the wicked will be rightfully judged and punished by God, and that in Christ we escape the wrath to come.

I do not subscribe to any paticular philosophy using those ideas, or Calvin's Atonement theory, if that is what you are asking.

That is why I think it would better if Christians restricted foundational doctrines (important doctrines upon which other doctrines are built) to what God has told us.

God told us that Jesus was the lamb of God, who came to bear the very sins of the world correct?

 

[Brightfame52]

You misunderstand.

I am not saying one passage from one place. While this is sometimes impirtant, depending on the context, we are talking about a broader topic when we speak of doctrines like the Atonement.

When I state my view I typically reference Genesis, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, the Psalms, the Gosoeks, Romans. Hebrews, etc.

I am not looking for a verbatim standard, if you mean a list of specific words.

This is where interpretation comes in. The words stated must mean the concept held, otherwise it is not Gid's Word but what some men (here a relatively small sect) believe the Bible teaches). It woukd be an understanding some hold rather than "every word that comes from God".

For example, if Jesus experienced God's wrath then we would find passages stating that "Jesus suffered God's wrath", "God punished His Elect", "Jesus drank the cup of wrath", etc.

It would be stated in the Bible because it is important.



Another example - another relatively small sect believes that the Bible teaches God will provide material wealth to thise with enough faith. They cannot find this in the Bible, but offer the same defence you have offered here.

Their belief (the prosperity gospel" passes the same standard you apply to your belief. But neither passes the text of Scripture.

Sound like I said, you looking for verbatim wording, or sound bites, you just want to win an argument. Most truth comes from comparing scripture with scripture and analogy If the word wrath is never used, its synonym or close equivalent is. Christ bore the punishment for the elects sins, it was Gods Justice. Justice can be called wrath, like in civil government, providing Justice , its called wrath Rom 13:4

.4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Christ died for the evil the elect did, He personally did no evil, but He bore the punishment that Justice demands against evil doers like you and i. So I think you just want to win a argument

 

[Brightfame52]

The Bible does say that Jesus is oyr representative substitute

It doesnt have to, its Illustrated, so you looking for sound bites to win a argument.

 

[Brightfame52]

Again, you are straying from God's Word.

Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins.
As our God sent Jesus to be the Propitiation for our sins.
High Priest Jesus made propitiation in behalf of (sonce you prefer that onstead of "for" our sins).

You just going in circles, you not really making any points

 

[JonC]

Sound like I said, you looking for verbatim wording, or sound bites, you just want to win an argument. Most truth comes from comparing scripture with scripture and analogy If the word wrath is never used, its synonym or close equivalent is. Christ bore the punishment for the elects sins, it was Gods Justice. Justice can be called wrath, like in civil government, providing Justice , its called wrath Rom 13:4

.4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Christ died for the evil the elect did, He personally did no evil, but He bore the punishment that Justice demands against evil doers like you and i. So I think you just want to win a argument

No, I am not looking for verbatim wording.

I am asking for any passage that states Jesus suffered God's wrath regardless of wording.

Thus far you have provided passages that do not even come close to stating your belief and simply insist that its what the passage teaches.

There are countless understandings people have about what the Bible teaches. What all of these diverse theories have in common is they all reject the truth that Gid's Word teaches "what is written" in the text.

So no, not verbatim - BUT it has to actually be in "what is written".

Justice can not be called wrath. Wrath is one aspect of justice. So is vindication. In the Psalms the psalmist often cries for justice. In the OT Israel often cries for justice. They ate not calling for wrath but vindication.

God did judge Christ. We see this when He "gave Him a name above every name", when He "raised Him from the dead", when He called Him "My Righteous One", and "My Elect".


Justice is not wrath, although wrath can be just.

It doesnt have to, its Illustrated, so you looking for sound bites to win a argument.

You, again, misunderstood.

I am saying the Bible DOES call Jesus a representative substitute. And NOT verba ("in Christ", "Second Adam").

I am asking for you to apply the standard we are commanded to apply towards all doctrine to your belief.


What do you believe is the difference between leaning on one's own understanding and leaning on every word from God?

You just going in circles, you not really making any points

My point is that you can find my belief in "what is written" in God's Word BUT you cannot find your belief in "what is written" in God's Word.

You, if you have not already, will have to decide whether to lean on every word that cometh from God or to lean on your own understanding. You will have to decide to belueve God's Word or what a "Christian" sect tells you is taught by the Bible.

You cannot do both.

 

[Brightfame52]

I am asking for any passage that states Jesus suffered God's wrath regardless of wording.

You are, there is no verbatim passage stating Jesus suffered Gods wrath, but He did in that He was died for sins, which was Gods Justice/Wrath against sin, Just like it is against the sins of the non-elect Col 3:6

For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience

If the elect were of the children of disobedience, they would suffer the same wrath for the same things, but for the elect Jesus suffered it in their place. See Gods wrath is His Justice, not some uncontrollable fit of rage from a mad man

 

[Brightfame52]

My point is that you can find my belief in "what is written" in God's Word BUT you cannot find your belief in "what is written" in God's Word.

You looking for sound bites friend. You want to win arguments if people don't produce your sound bite. You not alone in that though, lots of people do that to win an argument and to refuse a truth

 

[JonC]

@Brightfame52

I have told you my belief.
You can highlight my belief in your Bible.

What you are saying not only sounds like "sound bites", they ARE sound bites.
They are sound bites used by a relatively small "Christian" sect to say what they believe the Bible teaches.

Here is my question for you-

What is your objection to believing "what is written" (the actual Biblical text) in God's Word?

How is what a relatively small sect believes is taught by the Bible superior?


What I mean is so many Christians read the Bible, and although they may disagree on interpretation, the Bible makes sence to then without coming up with ideas not actually in the words themselves - the words verbatim - telling them what the Bible "really" teaches.

These people do not entertain the idea that Jesus experienced God's wrath because that idea is not in the biblical text. At the same time they do not find God's Word ("what is written" lacking.

So, when we have God's Word and God's Word is comolete, and the text actually makes sence, exactly why should we even entertain considering what any "Christian" sect says is "really" taught by the Bible???

You looking for sound bites friend. You want to win arguments if people don't produce your sound bite. You not alone in that though, lots of people do that to win an argument and to refuse a truth

No, I am not looking for sound bites, but that is what you are giving to me.

I am looking for "what is written", for the "words that come forth from God" stating your faith.

Thus far you only repeat what a relatively small sect of "Christoans" say the Bibke teaches, but you provide no word from God validating that faith.


We have God's Word. Without adding to it what men say is taught by the Bible God's Word makes perfect sense.

So why should we even consider what your relatively small sect of men (or any sect of men) say is "really" taught by the Bible?

You are, there is no verbatim passage stating Jesus suffered Gods wrath, but He did in that He was died for sins, which was Gods Justice/Wrath against sin, Just like it is against the sins of the non-elect Col 3:6

For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience

If the elect were of the children of disobedience, they would suffer the same wrath for the same things, but for the elect Jesus suffered it in their place. See Gods wrath is His Justice, not some uncontrollable fit of rage from a mad man

I am not asking for specific words, but I am asking for the "words that cometh forth from God", for "what is written", to specifically state your faith.

So if by "verbatim" you mean God's actual words then absolutely. Otherwise we would simply be leaning on man's understanding.

I can tell you my belief in God's words (in Greek or English...I'd struggle with Hebrew, but could get by).

Since God's Word is perfect and complete, since "what is written", since the "words that cometh forth from God" make perfect and complete sence without what your relatively small sect of "Christians" say is "really" taught by the Bible, why should we even consider your belief as remotely biblical?

How is what you say is taught by the Bible superior to believing God's actual words???

 

[Brightfame52]

I have told you my belief.

You don't know what you believe and no one else does

 

[JonC]

You don't know what you believe and no one else does

The only reason one cannot comprehend what I believe is that they are not saved. The flesh cannot comprehend that which is spiritual. To the lost it is foolishness. They are blind. They cannot acceot God or God's Word.

I do know what I believe. It is traditional Christianity, and existed over a thousand years before your belief came into being. And it has not ceased throughput the history of Christianity. It has, and will always be, more narrow a faith than nominal "Christianity".

Here is my belief:

God created Adam (man) from the dust, planted a Garden and placed Adam there. God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2). God told Adam that in the day he ate of the fruit death would be certain (Gen 2:17). Adam transgressed God’s command and his eyes were opened (Gen 3:6-7). God told Adam that because of his transgression he would work the land (the land was cursed) until he died, for he was dust and to dust he would return (Gen 3:19). God told the Serpent that he would put enmity between him and the woman, and between their offspring, that He would crush its head and he would strike His heel (Gen 3:15).

Through Adam’s sin death entered the world and spread to all man, for all have sinned Rom 5:12). Sin was in the world before God gave the Law, but sin was not charged against people as a transgression as they did not break a command (vs. 15). Nevertheless, death reigned even where there was no law because of sin.

Just as through the disobedience of one man, Adam the many were made sinners , so also through the obedience of the one man, Christ, the many will be made righteous (Rom 5:18-19).

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 (truly man) like us but without sin (Heb 4:15). He bore our sins bodily on the cross (1 Peter 2:24).
God became one of us (Heb 2:11-13) so that we would become like Him (Jn 15:4; Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 3:18) and share in His glory (Rom 8:17).

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).

 

[Brightfame52]

The only reason one cannot comprehend what I believe is that they are not saved

Really? That is powerful to say

 

[Brightfame52]

The only reason one cannot comprehend what I believe is that they are not saved. The flesh cannot comprehend that which is spiritual. To the lost it is foolishness. They are blind. They cannot acceot God or God's Word.

I do know what I believe. It is traditional Christianity, and existed over a thousand years before your belief came into being. And it has not ceased throughput the history of Christianity. It has, and will always be, more narrow a faith than nominal "Christianity".

Here is my belief:

God created Adam (man) from the dust, planted a Garden and placed Adam there. God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2). God told Adam that in the day he ate of the fruit death would be certain (Gen 2:17). Adam transgressed God’s command and his eyes were opened (Gen 3:6-7). God told Adam that because of his transgression he would work the land (the land was cursed) until he died, for he was dust and to dust he would return (Gen 3:19). God told the Serpent that he would put enmity between him and the woman, and between their offspring, that He would crush its head and he would strike His heel (Gen 3:15).

Through Adam’s sin death entered the world and spread to all man, for all have sinned Rom 5:12). Sin was in the world before God gave the Law, but sin was not charged against people as a transgression as they did not break a command (vs. 15). Nevertheless, death reigned even where there was no law because of sin.

Just as through the disobedience of one man, Adam the many were made sinners , so also through the obedience of the one man, Christ, the many will be made righteous (Rom 5:18-19).

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 (truly man) like us but without sin (Heb 4:15). He bore our sins bodily on the cross (1 Peter 2:24).
God became one of us (Heb 2:11-13) so that we would become like Him (Jn 15:4; Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 3:18) and share in His glory (Rom 8:17).

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).

Okay that's it?

 

[JonC]

Really? That is powerful to say

It is both powerful and sad, I agree. But the person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

God's words are our (those of us who are saved) doctrine. While interpretations vary we do not add to those words. We do not exchange even one of the words God have us for the volumes of diverse things men say is taught by God.

 

[JonC]

Okay that's it?

That is a summary. Yes.

I don't kniw why you ask "that's it?" when that is what you said you do not comprehend.

 

[Van]

No such thing as the means of reconciliation, Christ death actually reconciled sinners He died for unto God. Rom 5:10

Pure fiction, as 1 John 2:2 clearly says Christ became the means of reconciliation.

And Romans 5:10 refers to those living at the time of the writing who had been reconciled, it does not support the fiction that future believers were reconciled. Rather, God's word says God is reconciling humanity, which is the actual message of God, not the invention of prideful speculation lacking any foundation on God's word.

 

[Brightfame52]

It is both powerful and sad, I agree. But the person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

God's words are our (those of us who are saved) doctrine. While interpretations vary we do not add to those words. We do not exchange even one of the words God have us for the volumes of diverse things men say is taught by God.

That is a summary. Yes.

I don't kniw why you ask "that's it?" when that is what you said you do not comprehend.

I don't see where you understand scripture

Pure fiction, as 1 John 2:2 clearly says Christ became the means of reconciliation.

And Romans 5:10 refers to those living at the time of the writing who had been reconciled, it does not support the fiction that future believers were reconciled. Rather, God's word says God is reconciling humanity, which is the actual message of God, not the invention of prideful speculation lacking any foundation on God's word.

Again no such thing as a means of reconciliation, them Christ died for were reconciled to God Rom 5:10

But it is not my intention to prove that I understand anything.

And you have not, you have succeeded.

So all of the reformers and majority of the Baptists are not really saved?

Why you ask me that?

Yep. That is my intention. I do not believe Christians shoukd teach their understanding, or even lean on their understanding but on every word that comes from God.

I am pleased that you recognize I have presented not my understanding but my beluef (Scripture).

I do not understand why you insist on leaning on your understanding opposed to God's Word. It seems very close to you trying to elevate yourself to God (you chose which men to worship, you chose which theories and understandings "tickle your ears".

Friend you have not taught anything I can tell, not God's word especially

I have not tried to teach anything here.

You succeeded

I have only said that we are not to lean on our understanding but on every word that comes from God.

Okay

In other words, @Brightfame52 , all that I have offered here (all that you find confusing, that you reject, that you have said you do not understand) has been in the text of God's Word.

You have not shown that you understand that you posted

This is why it does not bother me when men find my posts confusing. They are not my words.

They are confusing your post are

Once again these posters make another false claim. How many times will they shout taint so to hide the truth before they come to their senses. Lord knows...

See post #43

Rom 5:10 shows people Christ died for were reconciled to God

Do you believe that punishing the righteous and clearing the guilty are both abomination to God?

Do you believe that sins cannot be transferred to those innocent of these sins?

Read my post and thread to see what I believe

No, it does not.

Yes it does. So now you have a problem believing what scripture says

I know what you believe.

So then why ask?

 

[JonC]

I don't see where you understand scripture

I would not expect you to.

You have exchanged God's Word (the "words that come from God", "what is written") for what a sect of men have told you the Bible means (their understanding of what it teaches).

If I were speaking to a Jehovah Witness, I would not expect them to believe I understood Scripture either. Like you, they have a subjective standard. And, like you, to them the words of God is foolishness. They depend on what men tell them those words mean.

So, yes, I absolutely agree that you do not see understanding in my referencing God's actual words.

But it is not my intention to prove that I understand anything. My intention is to simopy point one who professes to a Christian away from man's ideas about what the Bible teaches and to "every word that comes forth from God".

 

[JesusFan]

Really? That is powerful to say

So all of the reformers and majority of the Baptists are not really saved?

I would not expect you to.

You have exchanged God's Word (the "words that come from God", "what is written") for what a sect of men have told you the Bible means (their understanding of what it teaches).

If I were speaking to a Jehovah Witness, I would not expect them to believe I understood Scripture either. Like you, they have a subjective standard. And, like you, to them the words of God is foolishness. They depend on what men tell them those words mean.

So, yes, I absolutely agree that you do not see understanding in my referencing God's actual words.

But it is not my intention to prove that I understand anything. My intention is to simopy point one who professes to a Christian away from man's ideas about what the Bible teaches and to "every word that comes forth from God".

How can you be so sure that we misunderstanding what the bible teaches and yet you understand it correctly? You have insight and understanding exceeding all Reformers and nearly all Baptist scholars and pastors and teachers?

 

[JonC]

How can you be so sure that we misunderstanding what the bible teaches and yet you understand it correctly? You have insight and understanding exceeding all Reformers and nearly all Baptist scholars and pastors and teachers?

I never said I understand correctly. None of us have a perfect understand.

I can absolutely say that you are wrong because your belief is not in God's Word (you have departed from "every word that proceeds from God" and are "leaning on your understanding" of what you think the Bible teaches.

I know that my belief is correct because it is God's words.
I do not believe that my understanding of my belief is perfect.

But I can test my faith with God's Word and it will pass that test.
You cannot.

If my belief is wrong then God is wrong.
If your belief is wrong then a small sect if "Christians" are wrong.


You are also wrong about "nearly all Baptist scholars" holding your belief. The largest Baptist grouo is the SBC. This topic was important when they developed their faith & message. It alliwed for your belief but did not insist on it because so many held to traditional Christianity as opposed to Calvin's theory of Atonement. Some of the SBC oresidents were vocally opposed to your theory.

And the SBC reflected Baptists as a whole. Baptists are a diverse group.

Now, if you change your claim to "Reformed Baptists" then you would be right. Most, not all Reformed Baotists share your theory. But we are talking about a small cult within Baptist theology as a whole.