Atonement Theories

God was placed to crush to the point of death Jesus, as both of them knew by Hios willing death as atonement for sins his own would get saved!

 

I no longer have the gift to interpret tongues!

 

Lol... Hang on I'm trying to figure out how to get gifs from Giphy to show up ... Using Tapatalk on my phone.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

Ok, I updated it from my computer.

 

The crushing inloved taking and bearing the wrath of Goid to be poured out upon lost sinners in final judgemnent!

 

You see no wrath of God towards sin in bible? No Bowls/Cups of wrath?

 

Does hell include the wrath of God towards lost sinners, or not?

 

You're moving the goal-posts here. You said, originally, that the crushing involved Jesus taking and bearing the wrath of God which is to be poured out on sinners at the final judgment.

No one is arguing that the wrath of God will not be poured out on sinners at the final judgement, or that hell doesn't include the wrath of God towards lost sinners.

We are saying that the crushing didn't involve "Jesus taking and bearing [that] wrath".

 

The cup that Jesus drank and the cup of the wrath of God are two different cups.

Unless you're claiming that at least two of the three most prominent disciples will not be saved? (I doubt you mean that.)

 

Hello Steve! Welcome to the forum. I hope you have a blessed time here. "The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin" (from Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach. IVP 2007).

You are correct. You don't understand Penal Substitution. 'For He [God the Father] made Him who knew no sin [Christ] to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Cor. 5:21). On the cross, our Lord bore the sins of all His people (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24), and the Father punished sin in Him (Isaiah 53:5), and His perfect righteousness and obedience are credited to us who believe.

I am not interested in playing word games, but I'm happy to discuss the Scriptures with you. This topic has been discussed previously in mind-numbing detail and I have put my various arguments on my blog. You can find the links on Post #28, though I can cut and paste any particular points you may want to raise..

 

Why do you think that? What cup do you think He drank?

 

^ He got it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

And what cup was that?

 

So what do you suppose that the Lord Jesus was doing on the cross? You are in danger of turning Him into a sort of autistic teenager who tells his girlfriend, "I love you so much I'm going to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge for you." To which she might reply, "That's very impressive, but how would it show how much you love me?"

God tells us that He is, 'merciful and gracious, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.......' (Exodus 34:6-7). How does God forgive iniquity, transgression and sin if He by no means clears the guilty?

 

I have an answer, but before I give it, I want you to acknowledge on the record that under your scheme, where the cup is the cup of the wine of the wrath of God, that He did say that James and John (at least) would also drink of that cup.

You may/should also provide an explanation of how that doesn't mean they are co-redeemers (on the one hand) and it doesn't mean they will not be saved (on the other).

(Note: I read your blog post on PSA and the Trinity, and you do explicitly say, there, that the cup He was talking to them about is the same cup He's asking the Father to take from Him in the garden, which is, you say, that cup of the wine of the wrath of God against sin. You don't, however, mention the fact that He said they would drink the same cup, or how that jives with your theory. That's why I'm asking you to do so here. Once we get this straightened out, then we can look at another option, and find out if maybe it's actually the same option in different terms, or something different.)

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

We'll get to that when we look at the cup He actually drank.

As a preview, the verse you quoted, and particularly the part you underline, betrays you. It says, "by no means". Does "by no means" mean what it says as absolutely as it seems to be saying it? If so, then even the means of crushing an innocent person wouldn't do it. So that needs to be unpacked a bit before we just go assuming things.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk