JESUS SUFFERED THE WRATH OF GOD EQUIVALENT OF OUR ETERNAL HELL.

JesusFan · Tuesday at 2:44 PM

JonC said:
I disagree.....maybe? God manifested His righteousness apart ftom the law. Not only was God not bound by the law to create but He was also not bound by the law to re-create man. We know that God's righteousness is not a legal issue but above the law. We know this because God manifested it through and apart from the law.

But that is kinda off topic because God's righteousness manifested apart from the law fulfills the law.

I will give an example of what I mean.

The law says that murder is a sin. To murder is to transgress the law.

Adultery is a sin. It is a violation of the law.
Lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one's heart.
But it is not a violation of the law.

Yet it is still a sin, not because of the law but because it falls short of the glory of God.

Sins are manifestations of a heart set on the flesh rather than the Spirit.

You take ten murderers and put their sins on Jesus, punish them on Jesus, and you still have ten murders.

But you take one murderer and he dies to sin, is made a new creation in Christ, is vonformed into the image of Christ then you have a righteous man who will hear "well done my good and faithful servant" at judgment even if Jesus was not punished for the murder his "old man" committed.

The atonement is accomplishing righteousness apart from the law. It does not nullify the law but fulfills it.

Why? At judgment those who are saved will actually be righteous, they will be glorified. Christ is the Firstborn of many brothers. God as Judge will declare them righteous as they have been conformed into Christ's image.

The only reason for God to punish our sins on Jesus is if John Calvin was correct and justice means avenging the law. But then God forgiving sins is impossible. The best He could do is to provide a substitute. This is a philosophy that did not exist until Calvin developed a theory relying on 16th century French philosophy.

Now, I grant that the relative newness of this theory does not make it wrong. It makes it suspect, but not wrong.

We live in a culture that has adopted this theory, but I do not know that it has been accurately vetted. Cal in assumed it was correct because it is what he studied at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France. It was a popular movement within the law.

I think, perhaps, in a century or so Christians will equate it to the 10th century when scholars were convinced the Atonement was about reconciling man to God by restoring the honor man, through Adam, cost God (honor was an important focus during that age).

But I believe we, now, have enough time between us and 16th century France that we can objectively characterize Calvin's theory as dependent on a judicial philosophy that is no longer held apart from traditional beliefs. We know it is not justice because we look back and see it in history, but we over this it when applied to divine justice because we have held onto it for so long.

The same God though stated to us a universal law that one who sheds blood of another as min murder must die for that sin, and all who sin must die, so God cannot just make them new creatures without having someone die as atonement for their sins

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 4:04 PM

JesusFan said:
God cannot be bound by anything, as He is by very definition Supreme Being

He promised you eternal life, do you think He's bound to that?

Not to mention many other things.

He does it all by His plan before the foundation of the world according to His good pleasure.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 4:14 PM

JesusFan said:
Yet He multipled loaves and walked upon sea by His own power

I don't think He did, not because He couldn't, but because He made Himself of no reputation and took upon Himself the form of a servant.

I don't think He knew what was around the next corner unless the Holy Spirit told Him.

I see Him totally lead by the Holy Spirit, waiving His rights of Deity.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 4:25 PM

JonC said:
I disagree.....maybe? God manifested His righteousness apart ftom the law. Not only was God not bound by the law to create but He was also not bound by the law to re-create man. We know that God's righteousness is not a legal issue but above the law. We know this because God manifested it through and apart from the law.

But that is kinda off topic because God's righteousness manifested apart from the law fulfills the law.

I will give an example of what I mean.

The law says that murder is a sin. To murder is to transgress the law.

Adultery is a sin. It is a violation of the law.
Lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one's heart.
But it is not a violation of the law.

Yet it is still a sin, not because of the law but because it falls short of the glory of God.

Sins are manifestations of a heart set on the flesh rather than the Spirit.

You take ten murderers and put their sins on Jesus, punish them on Jesus, and you still have ten murders.

But you take one murderer and he dies to sin, is made a new creation in Christ, is vonformed into the image of Christ then you have a righteous man who will hear "well done my good and faithful servant" at judgment even if Jesus was not punished for the murder his "old man" committed.

The atonement is accomplishing righteousness apart from the law. It does not nullify the law but fulfills it.

Why? At judgment those who are saved will actually be righteous, they will be glorified. Christ is the Firstborn of many brothers. God as Judge will declare them righteous as they have been conformed into Christ's image.

The only reason for God to punish our sins on Jesus is if John Calvin was correct and justice means avenging the law. But then God forgiving sins is impossible. The best He could do is to provide a substitute. This is a philosophy that did not exist until Calvin developed a theory relying on 16th century French philosophy.

Now, I grant that the relative newness of this theory does not make it wrong. It makes it suspect, but not wrong.

We live in a culture that has adopted this theory, but I do not know that it has been accurately vetted. Cal in assumed it was correct because it is what he studied at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France. It was a popular movement within the law.

I think, perhaps, in a century or so Christians will equate it to the 10th century when scholars were convinced the Atonement was about reconciling man to God by restoring the honor man, through Adam, cost God (honor was an important focus during that age).

But I believe we, now, have enough time between us and 16th century France that we can objectively characterize Calvin's theory as dependent on a judicial philosophy that is no longer held apart from traditional beliefs. We know it is not justice because we look back and see it in history, but we over look this it when applied to divine justice because we have held onto it for so long.

I'm sure the Lord will have no problems correcting our faults of reading between the lines.

I think we all have some surprises coming.

JonC · Tuesday at 5:06 PM

Charlie24 said:
I'm sure the Lord will have no problems correcting our faults of reading between the lines.

I think we all have some surprises coming.

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

This implies that we do have an understanding. But we suffer from the human condition - we see in part.

My mistake years ago was not that my understanding was the Penal Substitution Theory but that I leaned on that understanding as if it were actually God's Word. I was serious when I said that God yanked me back from the precipice. The danger is not always one's understanding itself but that men have a tendency to be carried away by their philosophies.

In other words, people can hold the same understandings and God will make some stand while others will be carried away. The difference, IMHO, is how we hold our understandings. Do we hold thrm at arms length or are they what we lean on?

Here is a good place to argue and examine our differences. We should always reevaluate our understanding and compare them to God's Word precisely because we know that our understanding is both limited and flawed. We will not understand perfectly in this lifetime, but we can increasingly walk our understanding towards God.

A good way of putting it is a stagnant faith is a dead faith. Not only does faith influence how we live, urge us to actions, move us "from glory to glory", but we increasingly grow in God's Word.

I enjoy learning of other positions, especially how people get from the text of Scripture to their conclusions.

With this topic, it really does not make sense to me that God would transfer our dins from us to Jesus and punish them on Him. I believed it at once, but for the life of me I do not know how. I know why but not how.

In the interest of summary, the following just do not make sence to me

1. That wicked actions we do can be taken from us and put on Jesus.
2. That justice requires sins be punished apart from addressing the one who committed the sin.
3. That punishing the sins of the "old man" that will not be at Judgment is necessary
4. That the Atonement focuses on sin rather than man falling short of the glory of God

Just to name four.

An interesting journey would be to start from the beginning (Genesis) and see our differences. But I doubt either of us would have enough patience. We ain't Job.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 5:17 PM

JonC said:
I believe we have to lean not on our understanding but on every word that comes from God.

This implies that we do have an understanding. But we suffer from the human condition abd see in part.

My mistake years ago was not that my understanding was the Penal Substitution Theory but that I leaned on that understanding as if it were actually God's Word. I was serious when I said that God yanked me back from the precipice. The danger is not always one's understanding itself but that men have a tendency to be carried away by their philosophies.

In other words, people can hold the sane understandings and God will make dome stand while others will be carried away. The difference, IMHO, is how we hold oyr understandings. Do we hold thrm at arms length or are they what we lean on?

Here is a good place to argue and examine our differences. We should always reevaluate our understanding and compare them to God's Word precisely because we know that our understanding is both limited and flawed. We will not understand perfectly in this lifetime, but we can increasingly walk our understanding towards God.

A good way of putting it is a stagnant faith is a dead faith. Not only does faith influence how we live, urge us to actions, move us "from glory to glory", but we increasingly grow in God's Word.

I enjoy learning of other positions, especially how people get from the text of Scripture to their conclusions.

With this topic, it really does not make sense to me that God would transfer our dins from us to Jesus and punish them on Him. I believed it at once, but for the life of me I do not know how. I know why but not how.

In the interest of summary, the following just do not make sence to me

1. That wicked actions we do can be taken from us and put on Jesus.
2. That justice requires sins be punished apart from addressing the one who committed the sin.
3. That punishing the sins of the "old man" that will not be at Judgment is necessary
4. That the Atonement focuses on sin rather than man falling short of the glory of God

Just to name four.

An interesting journey would be to start from the beginning (Genesis) and see our differences. But I doubt either of us would have enough patience. We ain't Job.

Yes, it's very easy to assume this or that in Scripture. I call it reading between the lines, and I have some experience with it, lol.

It's probably best kept to oneself that to bring it out here on the boards.

Alan Dale Gross · Thursday at 11:29 PM

Charlie24 said:
"Additionally, the Corporal Death Christ Endured in the Flesh included a Death in His Soul, Equal to a Spiritual and an Eternal Death

The facsimile instance, duplicate case replica, and representative, exemplar prototype Death (if you will) Christ Endured in the Flesh included a Death in His Soul, when with His Perfect soul United with Jesus' Divine Nature, Suffered Enough Agony while Separated from The Father, to whatever extent there was a Departure from God the Father's Eternal Holy Communion, for Jesus to say, "My God, My God, why hath Thou Forsaken Me?"

This Death Jesus Suffered in His Soul before Giving Up the Ghost and Dying Physically was a Death in His Soul as closely Physically Equal in every way to Fully being Dead EXCEPT for Him to have ultimately experienced an actual Death OF HIS SOUL, since a Death of His Spirit would be impossible.

As God, God can not die and that is where Jesus Commended His Spirit to Return to God the Father. "And when Jesus had Cried with a Loud Voice, He said, Father, into Thy Hands I Commend My Spirit: and having said thus, He Gave Up the Ghost."

So, while DR. CHARLES STANLEY, for example, has been known to often say, "God Died" on the Cross, we have to 'take the meat' of his Ministry that we may believe and benefit from, 'and leave the bones' the way we would do when eating a piece of fish, etc.

Charlie24 said:
though not a Death of His Soul

Not a Death OF His Soul, etc.

Charlie24 said:
Looks like a spiritual death to me, but not clearly said.

O.K., maybe it wasn't stated clearly to you as a "Spiritual Death" because it never was intended to say any such thing, which again, would be absolutely impossible.

Alan Dale Gross · Friday at 12:37 AM

Charlie24 said:
Christ had the power to forgive sin before He died based on His death on the Cross being a foregone conclusion in the mind of the Father.

Absolutely.

Charlie24 said:
The OT saints sins were also forgiven based on this conclusion.

Absolutely. Amen.

Charlie24 said:
In Lev. 4 the sinner was to place his hand on the head of sin offering and slay the animal. The priest would place the blood on the alter and the sin would be forgiven.

Absolutely. With the intent involved of causing death and picturing "the life of the flesh is in the blood". "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Leviticus 17:11.

By Giving His Life, Jesus' Blood Made an Atonement for His people.

Charlie24 said:
But the blood of the animal could not take away the sin only cover it, only the Blood of Christ could take away the sin with the sin placed on Him rather than the animal.

Absolutely. The wages of sin is death. Jesus' Blood Covered the Guilt of all the sins of His people. "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His Name JESUS: for He shall Save His people from their sins." Matthew 1:21.

Charlie24 said:
This took place on the Cross as the Law was satisfied, enabling man the opportunity to be saved.

Absolutely. A Plan Made in Eternity Past is Perfectly Accomplished by Jesus Christ and Applied by the Holy Spirit.

"the word Atonement, though often used in the Old Testament, of typical sacrifices, making Expiation of sin; as in Leviticus 1:4 4:20,26,31,35 5:6,10,13,16,18 16:6,10,11,16-18,27,30,32-34 Leviticus 17:11 where the word rpk is used, which signifies to "cover"; and Christ, by His Sacrifice, the Antitype of these, is a covering to His people, from the curses of the Law they have broken----from the Wrath of God they have deserved----and from Avenging Justice their sins exposed them to.

"Yet it is but once used in the New Testament, Romans 5:11. "By whom we have received the Atonement" made for them by Christ their Surety, Head, and Representative; that is, the Benefit of the Atonement, the Application of it by the Spirit of God, who takes the Blood, Righteousness, and Sacrifice of Christ, and Applies to His people, and shows them their interest therein; the effect of which is Joy, Peace, and Comfort.

"The word used properly signifies "reconciliation"; and so it is elsewhere translated; and the Hebrew word rpk is sometimes rendered to "reconcile", Leviticus 6:30. Atonement and Reconciliation for sin, design the same thing, and both imply Satisfaction for sin." From

His By Grace--"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"-Doctrinal Book 6, Chapter 6

A Baptist Sovereign Grace, Christian site committed to the doctrines of grace . A ministry page that exists to try and clearly draw the lines between trusting Christ, and the mere appearance of trusting Him. Articles, audio messages,links & study tools. Calvinistic.

www.gracesermons.com

I love all that you are saying.

Charlie24 said:
Christ died for our sins, there was no other way, it was mandatory that He die for us to be saved.

If there were any other Way, we wouldn't have heard Jesus say in the Garden, "And He went a little further, and fell on His Face, and Prayed, saying, O My Father, if it be possible, let this Cup Pass from Me: nevertheless not as I Will, but as Thou Wilt, Matthew 26:39.

The "Cup" being the dregs of the Wrath of God.

Charlie24 said:
Christ freely gave up His life, but God could no die spiritually, He had never sinned.

Amen.

JonC · Friday at 8:17 PM

Alan Dale Gross said:
The "Cup" being the dregs of the Wrath of God.

Where did you get the idea that "the cup" is the dregs of the Wrath of God?

Does it not seem odd that Jesus told James and John that they would share in this "cup"?

Alan Dale Gross · Friday at 9:54 PM

JonC said:
Where did you get the idea that "the cup" is the dregs of the Wrath of God?

From the Bible Words which give us a clue that God the Father possesses "the dregs of the cup of My Fury", and what Fury Jesus Experienced which caused Him to Pour Out His Blood and to Suffering Physical Corporal Death "in the flesh" was the cup He Prayed for the Father to spare Him from, but there was no other way than for Jesus to be scourged and executed by the barbaric means of His Crucifixion.

Isaiah 51:22
"Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again:"

JonC said:
Does it not seem odd that Jesus told James and John that they would share in this "cup"?

Matthew 20:22
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I Am baptized with? They say unto Him, We are able."

"meaning His reproaches, sorrows, sufferings, and death; which because of the disagreeableness of them, He compares to a bitter cup of Vengeance, Wrath, Fury, and Indignation; and because they were Appointed to Him, and Allotted for Him, they were His Portion, therefore He expresses them by a "cup"; and because they were so many and great, of such an overwhelming nature, that He seemed to be Plunged into them, and Covered with them, therefore He likens them to a "baptism" and which the Ordinance of water baptism, performed by immersion, is a lively representation of.

"Now Christ suggests to these Disciples, that instead of indulging their ambitious desires of worldly grandeur, that they would do well to consider what a Bitter cup He had to drink of, and what a Sea of Sorrows and Sufferings He was about to be Plunged into, and Drenched in; and whether they could think of enduring anything of the Like Kind, for His Sake..."

Matthew 20:23. "And He saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I Am baptized with: but to sit on My Right Hand, and on My Left, is not Mine to Give, but it shall be Given to them for whom it is Prepared of My Father."

This was Jesus' Prophecy to James and John, of what they should suffer for Christ, and expresses nothing related to Jesus' Vicarious and Efficatious cup He Drank by Suffering and Dying on the cruel cross.

"And He saith unto them, ye shall drink indeed of My cup,.... Not of the selfsame, but of what was like unto it; meaning, that they should endure much persecution for His Name's Sake, as all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus must expect in one shape or another.

"Thus James, who was one of these persons, was slain with the sword by Herod;

"John, the other, was imprisoned, and beaten by the order of the Jewish sanhedrim, was banished into the isle of Patmos by Domitian; and, some say, was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, though saved in it: so that these words seem to be a Prophecy of what they should suffer for Christ, instead of enjoying places of worldly honour and profit under Him, they were seeking for."

JonC · 2025-11-15T09:44:24-0600

Alan Dale Gross said:
From the Bible Words which give us a clue that God the Father possesses "the dregs of the cup of My Fury", and what Fury Jesus Experienced which caused Him to Pour Out His Blood and to Suffering Physical Corporal Death "in the flesh" was the cup He Prayed for the Father to spare Him from, but there was no other way than for Jesus to be scourged and executed by the barbaric means of His Crucifixion.

Isaiah 51:22
"Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again:"

Matthew 20:22
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I Am baptized with? They say unto Him, We are able."

"meaning His reproaches, sorrows, sufferings, and death; which because of the disagreeableness of them, He compares to a bitter cup of Vengeance, Wrath, Fury, and Indignation; and because they were Appointed to Him, and Allotted for Him, they were His Portion, therefore He expresses them by a "cup"; and because they were so many and great, of such an overwhelming nature, that He seemed to be Plunged into them, and Covered with them, therefore He likens them to a "baptism" and which the Ordinance of water baptism, performed by immersion, is a lively representation of.

"Now Christ suggests to these Disciples, that instead of indulging their ambitious desires of worldly grandeur, that they would do well to consider what a Bitter cup He had to drink of, and what a Sea of Sorrows and Sufferings He was about to be Plunged into, and Drenched in; and whether they could think of enduring anything of the Like Kind, for His Sake..."

Matthew 20:23. "And He saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I Am baptized with: but to sit on My Right Hand, and on My Left, is not Mine to Give, but it shall be Given to them for whom it is Prepared of My Father."

This was Jesus' Prophecy to James and John, of what they should suffer for Christ, and expresses nothing related to Jesus' Vicarious and Efficatious cup He Drank by Suffering and Dying on the cruel cross.

"And He saith unto them, ye shall drink indeed of My cup,.... Not of the selfsame, but of what was like unto it; meaning, that they should endure much persecution for His Name's Sake, as all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus must expect in one shape or another.

"Thus James, who was one of these persons, was slain with the sword by Herod;

"John, the other, was imprisoned, and beaten by the order of the Jewish sanhedrim, was banished into the isle of Patmos by Domitian; and, some say, was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, though saved in it: so that these words seem to be a Prophecy of what they should suffer for Christ, instead of enjoying places of worldly honour and profit under Him, they were seeking for."

I disagree with the connections you are making. There is no reason to believe that Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath.

And there is no reason to believe that when Jesus told them they would indeed share the cup it was a different one.

Providing Catholic tradition about how James died does not help your case. The mode doesn't matter.

percho · 2025-11-16T14:20:32-0600

Alan Dale Gross said:
The facsimile instance, duplicate case replica, and representative, exemplar prototype Death (if you will) Christ Endured in the Flesh included a Death in His Soul, when with His Perfect soul United with Jesus' Divine Nature, Suffered Enough Agony while Separated from The Father, to whatever extent there was a Departure from God the Father's Eternal Holy Communion, for Jesus to say, "My God, My God, why hath Thou Forsaken Me?"

This Death Jesus Suffered in His Soul before Giving Up the Ghost and Dying Physically was a Death in His Soul as closely Physically Equal in every way to Fully being Dead EXCEPT for Him to have ultimately experienced an actual Death OF HIS SOUL, since a Death of His Spirit would be impossible.

As God, God can not die and that is where Jesus Commended His Spirit to Return to God the Father. "And when Jesus had Cried with a Loud Voice, He said, Father, into Thy Hands I Commend My Spirit: and having said thus, He Gave Up the Ghost."

So, while DR. CHARLES STANLEY, for example, has been known to often say, "God Died" on the Cross, we have to 'take the meat' of his Ministry that we may believe and benefit from, 'and leave the bones' the way we would do when eating a piece of fish, etc.

Not a Death OF His Soul, etc.

O.K., maybe it wasn't stated clearly to you as a "Spiritual Death" because it never was intended to say any such thing, which again, would be absolutely impossible.

Question

Did the spirit Jesus committed in to the hands of his Father give the life in the blood of his flesh making Jesus a living soul?

Consider Lev 17:11 and Gen 2:7

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken [From ἐν (G1722) and καταλείπω (G2641)] me
Jesus died committed the spirit life of the flesh to his Father
Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left [g2641] in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Did the resurrection release his soul from Hades and his flesh from corruption?

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

JESUS SUFFERED THE WRATH OF GOD EQUIVALENT OF OUR ETERNAL HELL.

JesusFan

Well-Known Member

Charlie24

Well-Known Member

Charlie24

Well-Known Member

Charlie24

Well-Known Member

JonC

Moderator

Charlie24

Well-Known Member

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member

His By Grace--"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"-Doctrinal Book 6, Chapter 6

JonC

Moderator

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member

JonC

Moderator

percho

Well-Known Member