Featured The Wrath of God

Read my post closely and you will see that you and I agree that the Father did NOT brutalize the Son.

He withdrew support that the evil in humanity and the demonic forces could do their worst.

There is not a presentation in the Scriptures to show that God's wrath was ever poured out upon His Son.

 

I think this whole passage of the experience of John and Peter may be the only time that the assembly has ever as one voice spoke in prayer and praise without rehearsal.

What a great passage, the whole chapter, should be nailed into the heart of every believer, for then perhaps the very ground will shake and people will boldly speak of the Savior!

 

Why is it that folks struggle and even separate over "theories"?

We see this not only here on the BB, but in the world, too. The Scopes trial is perhaps one of the items on a long list of divisive results of arguing over "theories." (I am taking the view that non believers consider the Biblical creation is nothing more than a theory). There are theories in just about all matters of science, physics, architecture, fine arts, ... I sat listening to a couple old professors arguing over the thinking of how the effects of lack of nurture would effect a child. Each had their theory, but neither had an answer.

There is not "one size answers all" concerning the work of Christ's reconciliation.
If one looks at Irenaeus's "Recapitulation Theory" there can be fault found, for it does not cover all aspects, and the same with perhaps the early "Ransom Theory" and so forth.

Every theories developed after 100 AD have some hold on the truth, but how folks present the theory often stray from the original. For example, the Ransom problem is who is "paid?" The early church fathers do not specify, and neither do the Scriptures. Certainly it wasn't the demonic world getting some payment, and neither would it be God, for He is the creator. It would make no sense for the payment to be made to Him who already exceeds any payment capability.

Or, how about the Recapitulation theory? The idea that Christ is the second Adam is taught in Scripture. But the teachers went too far! They compared Eve to Mary, and the fruit tree to the Cross! Such comparing and contrasting is (imo) extra biblical and totally unnecessary. Why not just acknowledge that Christ was the second Adam who persevered to victory over sin and the grave?

On and on one could go.

If you have to chose one, then I suggest you choose the Victorious Christ. It is the one that is most predominately displayed in the Scriptures and has complete support of both Old and New Testament.
As I pointed out in an early post (perhaps on another thread), Calvin and Luther both placed this theory above all others.

Gustaf Aulen (I don't remember how to put the accent over the "e") revived this earliest presentation of the apostles and church fathers during the openings of the 20th century. I have not read his writings, and probably won't. I have less time then I did, yesterday, and why waist it.

 

God judged our sin in the body of Christ. THAT is Scripture.

 

That Jesus did not bear the punishment of sin is an antichrist notion. It's the same sin that Peter committed, when he rebuked Christ for saying He would have to suffer many things in Jerusalem. Peter's rebuke sounded all devout and holy, and I'm sure he felt quite so when doing it. But Jesus would have none of it.

So far, we've seen in the example of the Ark, and in the details of the law of the sin offering, that the Lamb of God was indeed buffeted, slain and burned by God for sin. Not by men.

A third picture is the veil of the Temple, that is to say, His flesh ( Hebrews 10:20 ).

It was torn from the top to the bottom when Jesus was crucified.

Who tore it?

 

Then Isaiah 53:6 where it says it laid on Him our iniquity becomes meaningless gibberish. And we then must still all perish in the lake of fire. Since it then would not have been done to keep us from there.

 

Unless it means a penal subtution it does nothing to keep us from hell.

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I don't think you are right. God cannot change His mind because He must either change it from better to worse or from worse to better, and either would make Him imperfect.
Numerous Scriptures say that God is unchangeable: In Numbers 23:19, God does not repent. In Malachi 3:6, God says, "I am the LORD; I do not change." In James 1:7, God is 'The Father of light in whom is no variation or shadow of turning.' I have quoted Psalms 7:11 several times to show that God's anger is not a changeable thing.
It is true that God does new things which seem like changes of plan, but in the light of the passages above, we must understand that those new things were planned in eternity although they were executed in time. For example, God made Saul king and then deposed him. We even read in 1 Samuel 15:35 that 'The LORD repented [or 'regretted' NKJV] that He had made Saul king over Israel.' But in the very same chapter, Samuel tells Saul, 'And also the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent [NKJV 'relent']; for he is not a man that he should repent' {v.29). The Hebrew word is the same in both verses.

This probably needs a new thread, but I don't have the time to start one, nor, probably, to contribute much to one.
Any good Systematic Theology will cover what is called the Simplicity of God. There is also an excellent recent book on the subject, All that is in God by James Dolezal, a Baptist (Reformation Heritage Books, 2017)..

 

Someone else came up with this claim an another thread. I asked him which Synod or which Papal decree he was referring to and he went strangely quiet. So perhaps you can help me.
I find the claim rather hard to believe since many of the Church Fathers support the Doctrine of Penal Substitution in their writings.

It does rather seem to me that it is your belief that is Roman Catholic. You start off by saying that you believe in nothing but Scripture, and then, when your views are shown to be wrong, you appeal to the Church fathers. I have debated a few Roman Catholics over the years, and that tends to be their tactic.

BTW, Infirmity is not spelled 'infirmaty.' Just saying.

 

Well, I've been posting the verses for days, but if you'd like another

1 Peter 2:24

 

@JonC
I simply have no reason not to understand a penal substitutional atonement from the Scripture.

 

Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ