You did, when you stated Jesus did not suffer the wrath of God for our sins
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Snuggling With Satan?
- Thread starter Zaatar71
- Start date
Ummmm......no. I said that Jesus did not experience the wrath of God.
There is a big difference no between saying "Jesus did not experience the wrath of God" and saying "God excuses past sins".
You lied. (Those statements are too different to be a misunderstanding. It is lying).
I'm not understanding what you're saying. The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus covers all sins, past, present, future. Are you saying something different?
How do you figure the Lord Jesus did not experience the wrath of God (against sin)?
Several reasons.
1. In Psalm 22 the Servant is forsaken to suffer. During this suffering He recounts the faithfulness of God to the forefathers. In those cases what was suffered was wrought by Satan by the plan of God. And God did not abandon them but delivered them not from the suffering but through the suffering. God is not the source of their suffeting.
In the same psalm the Servant is suffeting under the powers of evil.
2. Scripture describes Christ as tasting death for all man to destroy the one who holds the power of death.
3. Satan is, throughout Scripture, the enemy. The suffeting of the righteous is by God's plan (and accomplishes His purposes) but is always the suffering wrought by Satan. Their cries for justice was for God to deliver them from this evil.
4. Scripture states that it is an abomination to God to clear the guilty. That same passage states it is equally an abomination to punish the righteous.
5. No passage states that Jesus suffered God's wrath.
6. Justice as defined in Scripture would prevent such from occurring. Not only this, but Jesus suffeting God's wrath would accomplish nothing but to make God unrighteous in accordance to Old Testsment passages (already mentioned).
7. There is no reason for Jesus to have suffered God's wrath. I do not believe divine justice is legal humanism. So God punishing sins apart from the wicked not necessary. There is no such demand on God. God punished the wicked and this on the day of judgment.
8. It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. Christ died (the wages of sin) and God judged Him righteous (destroying the power of Satan, the Son of Man suffered those powers and arose victorious....victory over the grave).
9. Sin produces death. This is something attributed to Satan. Jesus did not experience the second death.
10. The idea that God punished Jesus is relatively new. I do not see that it was properly considered prior to being adopted (understandable at the time it was developed, but unacceptable now).
11. Mostly because the idea Jesus suffered God's wrath or punishment is not in the Bible and what is in the Bible seems complete to me. Adding that idea can only obscure what is in the Bible.
Last edited:
So we would disagree if Jesus tok wrath of God due to us when sinners , but what fo you mean when saved we no longer have prior dins Hod has to deal with or am I misunderstanding you?
God judges the world at a future time. This is called "the day of judgment", "the day of wrath", "that day".
On "that day" God will separate the nations as a Shepheard separates sheep and goats.
One group will have been raised to condemnation. These are the wicked. They remain in their sins and are condemned for rejecting the Light. They reject the Lught because their deeds are evil. They will experience the second death.
The other group - the one you are asking about - have been "refined", have "died to sin", have been "conformed into the image of Christ", have been "made new creations in Christ". God has removed their old heart and spirit and given them a new heart and spirit. God has put His Spirit in them.
The "old man" does not stand before God on that day. A new creation, refined, conformed into the image of Christ stands before God.
This group of people are righteous. They are glorified in Christ. They have no sins.
There is no need for God to have punished the sins of "the old man" because the old man will not stand before God at Judgment.
The reason John Calvin insisted that God had to punish sins has nothing to do with our salvation. This is taken care of with us being refined and recreated.
The reason is Calvin held to legal humanism. He applied that philosophy to divine justice and made the law akin to an accounting log.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Saying "you lied" is a little harsh. I would suggest you refer back to Torrance. He apparently felt it was worth spending time to explain how Jesus did indeed experience the wrath of God against all the sin of all mankind. He did not think that the atonement should be explained only in forensic terms yet in 400 pages of very difficult reading he never that I have come across denies that Jesus did not experience the wrath of God.
There is probably a debate term for this but what you did there was make a misleading comparison and draw your conclusion from the bare statements. Yes, the statements are totally different. But the concept, that if Christ did not experience the wrath of God it would logically mean that God was excusing sin is very common and widely held among Christian theologians.
Maybe. But after so much of it calling a spade a spade seems warranted.
My statement was not a comparison.
I said that Jesus did not experience God's wrath.
@JesusFan said that means I posted God excuses past sins.
I am not very interested in what Torrance believed. I assumed that Torrance believed Jesus experienced God's wrath simply because he was a Presbyterian minister. But it isn't something I have investigated.
The term (not a theological one but logical one) you are looking for is non sequitur.
Saying Jesus dod not experience God's wratg is not saying God excuses past sins. That is a logical fallacy.
I have already explained that God's forgiveness is based on much more than God punishing sins. One must "died to sin", "repent", "turn from wickedness", a "new heart" must be made, man must "turn to God", be "born of the Spirit", be "made a new creation in Christ", be "refined", be "conformed into the image of Christ", "given a new heart and a new spirit".
The things in quotation marks are God's words.
That is not excusing sins. The wicked must perish.
Last edited:
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
You might be mixing up some prophetic language here but I not interested in going there right now.
I would agree here too.
They have. But it cannot be left out that they have had their sins propitiated by Christ's atonement. That does not in any way contradict or diminish what you wrote but ample scripture says it was still essential.
They have no sins because Christ took on the consequences of their sin on himself and this was propitiation for them. That is why they have no sins. As a moderate Calvinist I would say that even the above group that refused to come to Christ out of final and persistent love of their sin and defiance of Christ even had their sins propitiated at the atonement (and I have a lot of reasons for that), but their persistent and final refusal will be the basis of their severe judgement.
That makes no sense. The Calvinists did I think overdue the legal exchange aspect of the atonement which is not to say that it's wrong. It's just to say that it is not all that went on. They had their battles with the Catholics and the Arminians and Socinians and that reflected what they emphasized. If you look deeply you always get back to the level of your own sin being taken upon Christ - the result being it was removed from you. And if you look at wrath as God's righteous and proper reaction to willful and open sin, and don't get too taken away with the human way we exhibit it, and have some concept that you yourself may be or have been guilty at a personal level of some of that type of sin - then Jesus taking wrath due to us upon himself is a very good thing to know.