Be On Guard against false doctrine.....False Ideas on PSA considered

[Iconoclast]

Murray - “It is unnecessary, and it weakens the biblical concept of the wrath of God, to deprive it of its emotional and affective character … to construe God’s wrath as simply in his purpose to punish sin or to secure the connection between sin and misery is to equate wrath with its effects and virtually eliminate wrath as a movement within the mind of God. Wrath is the holy revulsion of God’s being against that which is the contradiction of his holiness.”

Deffinbaugh has this interesting comment on "the wrath of God":

God’s present wrath is really a gracious gesture on God’s part. It is not permanent, and it is not irreversible. When God gives men over to sin, He is not giving up on men. Giving men over to sin is God’s way of encouraging men to forsake their sin and to be saved. While God’s future wrath, once in force, cannot be reversed or escaped, God’s present wrath can be reversed, and men can escape.
The reason for this is that God has already poured out His “future wrath” on Jesus Christ. This is the good news of the gospel. God’s anger toward sin has been satisfied in Christ because His wrath was poured out on Him, at Calvary.

Have you accepted God’s forgiveness in Christ?
Those who have trusted in Christ have already been punished, in Him. No man needs to suffer God’s eternal wrath, for Christ has suffered it for us. But only those who trust in Him may share in God’s salvation through Him. God’s future wrath falls only on those who reject the suffering of Jesus Christ, bearing God’s wrath, in their place. How tragic!

 

[Iconoclast]

@Iconoclast ,

You are wrong. Look again at my post. I presented two ideas of what I believe (two truths separated by an "and").

If I say "get a ball and a glass of tea" I am not saying "get a glass of tea ball:.

Before I get too critical, am I correct in assuming English is mot your second language?

I am not going to play your word games....I am going to show what you have posted.I will let the readers decide,

 

[JonC]

Murray - “It is unnecessary, and it weakens the biblical concept of the wrath of God, to deprive it of its emotional and affective character … to construe God’s wrath as simply in his purpose to punish sin or to secure the connection between sin and misery is to equate wrath with its effects and virtually eliminate wrath as a movement within the mind of God. Wrath is the holy revulsion of God’s being against that which is the contradiction of his holiness.”

Deffinbaugh has this interesting comment on "the wrath of God":

God’s present wrath is really a gracious gesture on God’s part. It is not permanent, and it is not irreversible. When God gives men over to sin, He is not giving up on men. Giving men over to sin is God’s way of encouraging men to forsake their sin and to be saved. While God’s future wrath, once in force, cannot be reversed or escaped, God’s present wrath can be reversed, and men can escape.
The reason for this is that God has already poured out His “future wrath” on Jesus Christ. This is the good news of the gospel. God’s anger toward sin has been satisfied in Christ because His wrath was poured out on Him, at Calvary.

Have you accepted God’s forgiveness in Christ?
Those who have trusted in Christ have already been punished, in Him. No man needs to suffer God’s eternal wrath, for Christ has suffered it for us. But only those who trust in Him may share in God’s salvation through Him. God’s future wrath falls only on those who reject the suffering of Jesus Christ, bearing God’s wrath, in their place. How tragic!

@Iconoclast ,

I believe you are a great source for Reformed teachers (particularly antiquated teachers). This is a complement. If I want to know about John Gill then you would be my go to member. Same with Murray.

But when it comes to testing doctrine we are commanded to go to Scripture, not teachers we like.

Do you know of say passages that state Christ experienced God's wrath?

 

[JonC]

I am not going to play your word games....I am going to show what you have posted.I will let the readers decide,

It is not word games. I was telling you what I believe. Christ bore our sins bodily, He became a curse for us, He died for our sins, and by His stripes we are healed. I can back up each of those beliefs with Scripture. All you had to do was ask.

Now....can you back up your beliefs with Scripture?

Let's start with Christ experiencing God's wrath instead of us. Where is that written in God's Word?

Or, if you prefer, we could look at Christ's death appeasing God. Where is that written in the Bible?

 

[Silverhair]

Moses was one of the greatest types of Christ Jesus in scripture; we read this;
23 Therefore he said that he would destroy them,

had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach,

to turn away His wrath, lest he should destroy them.
preceptaustin;

It seems to me that the text that you have quoted actually shows that the wrath of God was not laid on Christ Jesus. Instead what we see is that the Christ Jesus as our propitiation turned away the wrath of God. Thus we do not receive it because Christ Jesus' shed blood appeased God.

 

[JonC]

It seems to me that the text that you have quoted actually shows that the wrath of God was not laid on Christ Jesus. Instead what we see is that the Christ Jesus as our propitiation turned away the wrath of God. Thus we do not receive it because Christ Jesus' shed blood appeased God.

Yep.
That is actually what it means that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. In Him we escape the wrath to come.

 

[SavedByGrace]

What is at issue here is the nature of the finished work of the Cross.

What is a part of the discussion has to do with Does a Holy, Just ,God punish sin...all sin?

Can there be unpunished sin and God be said to be just?

Is it just that the ungodly who go into second death to be eternally under the punishment of God, punished by the wrath of God coming upon them without mercy....when believers who were born Children of wrath go on into eternal life when during their life, they committed the same sins or worse than the reprobate?

What exactly happened to the just wrath against God against the sins of believers before they were saved from their sins?

Did something happen to their sins, that makes them able to spend eternity with God?

Does the OT. sacrificial system mean anything?

Did it point to a remedy that was in the future?

What do terms in the bible mean?

Can we just repeat partial bible verses without any explanation and claim we are biblically based, when we cannot explain the verses?

If we explain away the bible verses without explaining them....do we really have those verses?

These and other questions will be addressed here.

"Surely He has borne our sickness and carried our suffering; yet we considered Him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought our peace was on him; and by His wounds we are healed...Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise Him. He has caused him to suffer. When you make His soul an offering for sin, He will see his offspring. He will prolong his days and Yahweh’s pleasure will prosper in his hand" (Isaiah 53:4, 5, 10)

"For Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our behalf; so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21)

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,” (Galatians 3:13)

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness. You were healed by His wounds" (1 Peter 2:24)

This is the Holy Bible, this is very clear Teaching, that the Death of Jesus Christ, IS on the behalf of all sinners, effective when they "repent and believe". Jesus Christ to the "curse" that should fall on us, upon Himself. He was wounded for OUR sins, bruised for US, taking the wrath of God that Justly should fall on us sinners, upon Himself. Thereby becoming the Ark for the salvation of lost sinners. This is Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

It is clear that some have been deceived by the enemy of our souls, into rejecting this Great Truth of the Death of Jesus Christ. Others, who once believe in it, have also fallen into great deception. They mock what the Bible teaches, and think that they know more than what the Infallible Word of God Teaches!

 

[JonC]

"Surely He has borne our sickness and carried our suffering; yet we considered Him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought our peace was on him; and by His wounds we are healed...Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise Him. He has caused him to suffer. When you make His soul an offering for sin, He will see his offspring. He will prolong his days and Yahweh’s pleasure will prosper in his hand" (Isaiah 53:4, 5, 10)

"For Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our behalf; so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21)

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,” (Galatians 3:13)

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness. You were healed by His wounds" (1 Peter 2:24)

This is the Holy Bible, this is very clear Teaching, that the Death of Jesus Christ, IS on the behalf of all sinners, effective when they "repent and believe". Jesus Christ to the "curse" that should fall on us, upon Himself. He was wounded for OUR sins, bruised for US, taking the wrath of God that Justly should fall on us sinners, upon Himself. Thereby becoming the Ark for the salvation of lost sinners. This is Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

It is clear that some have been deceived by the enemy of our souls, into rejecting this Great Truth of the Death of Jesus Christ. Others, who once believe in it, have also fallen into great deception. They mock what the Bible teaches, and think that they know more than what the Infallible Word of God Teaches!

I agree with everything you have posted here, with the exception of labeling it "Penal Substitution Theory".....but that's just a label.

I should clarify - the thing I disagree with is not the teaching of those passages. They are very clear and those who reject them are not saved. They are truly deceived.

What I disagree with is adding to those passages. Some add that Christ's death appeased God's wrath. Some add that Jesus experienced God's wrath instead of us. Some change Scripture by replacing "on our behalf" with "instead of us". By adding to, or changing, God's Word they change its teaching...it's meaning...and they invite condemnation upon themselves.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here are a few examples of what readers have noticed;pt1

Purchased from whom? What was the cost?
Jon, you keep side stepping around the elephant in the room.

Jon, what does God's law require?
You use the term "paid" and then reject that a payment was made. I cannot make it up. You literally use a word, then deny that words meaning all in the same sentence. It is no wonder why no one can actually discuss the issue with you. You say one thing and mean another. This lack of clarity is all on you.

This debate rages on even on this board. Those who refuse, due to ungodly presuppositions, to accept the clear scripture of God on this matter work to set up uncommon and unrealistic standards to hold others. For example unless there is a verse the directly says Jesus took on the wrath of God for sinners then they say it cannot be proven. Problem is this standard is not held by anyone else even Jesus Himself.

In academia among theologians this standard does not exist. Often scripture is determined to be clear on a subject without a direct reference to it.

In scripture we hold to the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no direct mention of the Trinity only clear scripture on each person within the Trinity.

Now we come to this doctrine and some who reject it for personal reasons want to create a false standard and then try to hold everyone else to that false standard. I can only imagine this is done so that they can feel more comfortable with their errant doctrine.

So God does plan to impose His wrath on the lost. Yet there are those who would have us believe that in order to make our sins right that wrath just goes away.

The suffering on the cross should be a clear picture of God's wrath to any reasonable person. The suffering of Jesus should be clearly understood as the wrath of God.

Yep another non response with no standard

Jon, Paul is extremely clear in 1 Corinthians 10.
It seems you are being resistant to scripture. Note that I am not creating something from nothing. Most covenant theologians point out what I have pointed out.
Did the people of Israel deserve the strike of God's judgment or did the rock deserve it?

Does Paul call that Rock Jesus?

Jon, Paul makes the connection and you stand against what Paul connects.

The Isaiah 53 passage says He was “smitten” of God for our transgressions and by His stripe we are healed. That is God punishing Him and “substitution” language.

You can disagree all day, which is fine, but it is intellectually dishonest to call PSA “extra-biblical” or a philosophy.

Jon, I provided that the rod is one of judgment. I showed how the rod is judgment upon the rock that the people deserved. Instead God poured out gracious water of life.
Clearly you don't want to make the connection that Paul intends for us to connect. We have finished our discussion.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I agree with everything you have posted here, with the exception of labeling it "Penal Substitution Theory".....but that's just a label.

I should clarify - the thing I disagree with is not the teaching of those passages. They are very clear and those who reject them are not saved. They are truly deceived.

What I disagree with is adding to those passages. Some add that Christ's death appeased God's wrath. Some add that Jesus experienced God's wrath instead of us. Some change Scripture by replacing "on our behalf" with "instead of us". By adding to, or changing, God's Word they change its teaching...it's meaning...and they invite condemnation upon themselves.

Jon, I am sure that you will agree, that we must allow Scripture to speak for itself, without imposing our own views on to its meanings?

Let us take one example from Romans 3:25, where Paul uses the noun "ἱλαστήριον" for the Death of Jesus Christ. The meanings are, "to appease, an expiatory sacrifice". Our English word here is "propitiation", which is defined as, "the act of pleasing and making calm a god or person who is annoyed with you" (propitiation). It is clear from the language used in the Bible, that APPEASEMENT is one of the meaning to this word, that the Holy Spirit chose for the Death of Jesus Christ.

In Galatians 3:13, Jesus Christ is said to be "a curse FOR us", Dr A T Robertson defines this rather well:

Having become a curse for us (genomenos huper hēmōn katara). Here the graphic picture is completed. We were under (hupo) a curse, Christ became a curse over (huper) us and so between us and the overhanging curse which fell on him instead of on us. Thus he bought us out (ek) and we are free from the curse which he took on himself. This use of huper for substitution is common in the papyri and in ancient Greek as in the N.T. (Joh_11:50; 2Co_5:14.).

The Greek preposition, ὑπέρ, is used in classical and attic Greek, and both the LXX and NT, to denote, "INSTEAD OF". Same preposition used in 2 Cor. 5:21.

Can anyone really doubt the language of the Bible? It is very clear to me that PSA is what the Bible does teach

 

[JonC]

To clarify (again)....This I affirm:

Isaiah 53:4–10 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.

2 Corinthians 5:13–21 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 3:8–14 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

1 Peter 2:21–25 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.


I do not call it Penal Substitution Theory because typically Penal Substitution Theorists add to this Scripture the idea that Christ experienced God's wrath instead of us and I do not want yo be mistaken as joining in with them. Also....none of those passages actually support Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[JonC]

Here are a few examples of what readers have noticed;pt1

Purchased from whom? What was the cost?
Jon, you keep side stepping around the elephant in the room.

Jon, what does God's law require?
You use the term "paid" and then reject that a payment was made. I cannot make it up. You literally use a word, then deny that words meaning all in the same sentence. It is no wonder why no one can actually discuss the issue with you. You say one thing and mean another. This lack of clarity is all on you.

This debate rages on even on this board. Those who refuse, due to ungodly presuppositions, to accept the clear scripture of God on this matter work to set up uncommon and unrealistic standards to hold others. For example unless there is a verse the directly says Jesus took on the wrath of God for sinners then they say it cannot be proven. Problem is this standard is not held by anyone else even Jesus Himself.

In academia among theologians this standard does not exist. Often scripture is determined to be clear on a subject without a direct reference to it.

In scripture we hold to the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no direct mention of the Trinity only clear scripture on each person within the Trinity.

Now we come to this doctrine and some who reject it for personal reasons want to create a false standard and then try to hold everyone else to that false standard. I can only imagine this is done so that they can feel more comfortable with their errant doctrine.

So God does plan to impose His wrath on the lost. Yet there are those who would have us believe that in order to make our sins right that wrath just goes away.

The suffering on the cross should be a clear picture of God's wrath to any reasonable person. The suffering of Jesus should be clearly understood as the wrath of God.

Yep another non response with no standard

Jon, Paul is extremely clear in 1 Corinthians 10.
It seems you are being resistant to scripture. Note that I am not creating something from nothing. Most covenant theologians point out what I have pointed out.
Did the people of Israel deserve the strike of God's judgment or did the rock deserve it?

Does Paul call that Rock Jesus?

Jon, Paul makes the connection and you stand against what Paul connects.

The Isaiah 53 passage says He was “smitten” of God for our transgressions and by His stripe we are healed. That is God punishing Him and “substitution” language.

You can disagree all day, which is fine, but it is intellectually dishonest to call PSA “extra-biblical” or a philosophy.

Jon, I provided that the rod is one of judgment. I showed how the rod is judgment upon the rock that the people deserved. Instead God poured out gracious water of life.
Clearly you don't want to make the connection that Paul intends for us to connect. We have finished our discussion.

Scripture tells us that we were slaves to sin. Are you suggesting that God paid sin???!!!!! Scripture says we were redeemed from the curse. Are you suggesting God paid a curse????!!!!!

I believe most members realize that Christ paying a price does not necessitate an entity to recieve payment.

Those who do not may want to purchase a dictionary.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I do not call it Penal Substitution Theory because typically Penal Substitution Theorists add to this Scripture the idea that Christ experienced God's wrath instead of us and I do not want yo be mistaken as joining in with them. Also....none of those passages actually support Penal Substitution Theory.

Jon, you quote from Isaiah 53, where it is very clear, that God did punish Jesus Christ FOR our sins! Verse 5 says, "But He was pierced FOR our transgressions. He was crushed FOR our iniquities". It is God the Father Who is the One Who "pierced and crushed" Jesus Christ FOR US. This is clear. As also in verse 10 "Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise Him"

 

[SavedByGrace]

Are you suggesting God paid a curse

Galatians 3:13, Christ became a curse FOR (INSTEAD OF) US. Can you still not see this?

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2. these readers have not missed your error and double speak, no, they are on it like white on rice!
“For Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God….”

Believe God’s Word

How can you read that passage, “Christ died for sins, once for all, the just for the unjust…” and not see substitution?

Mind Boggling!!!

So when Isaiah, who spoke directly to God, and was under inspiration of God Holy Spirit said “We esteemed Him smitten of God…” he was having a perception problem understanding what God was revealing to him?

What else did he get wrong in the passage? What about “by His stripes you are cleansed?”

There is clearly some kind of substitution punishment going on there.

Wait a second!! Is it possible that “we esteemed Him smitten of God” was laying the foundation for “by His stripes you are cleansed”?

Of course it does, but Only if you actually attempt to understand the passage in the context it was written, without ignoring or dismissing everything that goes against what you believe.

The “just for the unjust” doesn’t mean “instead of”, it means “on behalf of”. Which is substitution.

“He was pierced through for our transgressions..” “He was crushed for our iniquities”

Do you see any substitution there?

And they seemed to insist that God's law is an expression of His nature and that is the reason it cannot be simply annulled by decree or relaxed. It is not a philosophical gyration to look at scripture and see that "wrath" is part of God's reaction to sin.

The Belgic Confession (A.D.1561) talks about Christ making satisfaction and bearing the punishment of sin by his bitter passion and death. It says that God manifested his justice against his Son when he laid our iniquities on him and poured fourth his mercy on us ...out of love. Actually, the word wrath is not used. I think the reason for this is explained in the confession in that God was "perfectly merciful and perfectly just".

 

[JonC]

Jon, I am sure that you will agree, that we must allow Scripture to speak for itself, without imposing our own views on to its meanings?

Let us take one example from Romans 3:25, where Paul uses the noun "ἱλαστήριον" for the Death of Jesus Christ. The meanings are, "to appease, an expiatory sacrifice". Our English word here is "propitiation", which is defined as, "the act of pleasing and making calm a god or person who is annoyed with you" (propitiation). It is clear from the language used in the Bible, that APPEASEMENT is one of the meaning to this word, that the Holy Spirit chose for the Death of Jesus Christ.

In Galatians 3:13, Jesus Christ is said to be "a curse FOR us", Dr A T Robertson defines this rather well:

Having become a curse for us (genomenos huper hēmōn katara). Here the graphic picture is completed. We were under (hupo) a curse, Christ became a curse over (huper) us and so between us and the overhanging curse which fell on him instead of on us. Thus he bought us out (ek) and we are free from the curse which he took on himself. This use of huper for substitution is common in the papyri and in ancient Greek as in the N.T. (Joh_11:50; 2Co_5:14.).

The Greek preposition, ὑπέρ, is used in classical and attic Greek, and both the LXX and NT, to denote, "INSTEAD OF". Same preposition used in 2 Cor. 5:21.

Can anyone really doubt the language of the Bible? It is very clear to me that PSA is what the Bible does teach

A couple of issues here.

First, the word translated "propitiation" does not mean "appease". The passage is not saying that Christ "propitiayes" but IS the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World. The subject is Christ. He is OUR propitiation. In Him WE escape the wrath to come.

The word translated "on behalf of" does not mean "instead of". Nowhere in Scripture does it mean "instead of".

 

[JonC]

pt2. these readers have not missed your error and double speak, no, they are on it like white on rice!
“For Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God….”

Believe God’s Word

How can you read that passage, “Christ died for sins, once for all, the just for the unjust…” and not see substitution?

Mind Boggling!!!

So when Isaiah, who spoke directly to God, and was under inspiration of God Holy Spirit said “We esteemed Him smitten of God…” he was having a perception problem understanding what God was revealing to him?

What else did he get wrong in the passage? What about “by His stripes you are cleansed?”

There is clearly some kind of substitution punishment going on there.

Wait a second!! Is it possible that “we esteemed Him smitten of God” was laying the foundation for “by His stripes you are cleansed”?

Of course it does, but Only if you actually attempt to understand the passage in the context it was written, without ignoring or dismissing everything that goes against what you believe.

The “just for the unjust” doesn’t mean “instead of”, it means “on behalf of”. Which is substitution.

“He was pierced through for our transgressions..” “He was crushed for our iniquities”

Do you see any substitution there?

And they seemed to insist that God's law is an expression of His nature and that is the reason it cannot be simply annulled by decree or relaxed. It is not a philosophical gyration to look at scripture and see that "wrath" is part of God's reaction to sin.

The Belgic Confession (A.D.1561) talks about Christ making satisfaction and bearing the punishment of sin by his bitter passion and death. It says that God manifested his justice against his Son when he laid our iniquities on him and poured fourth his mercy on us ...out of love. Actually, the word wrath is not used. I think the reason for this is explained in the confession in that God was "perfectly merciful and perfectly just".

What is mind nothing is the fact that, when asked for a few simple passages stating your faith, all you can do is quote men who tickle your ears and...theories.... ONE EVEN ONE VERSE stating that Christ experienced God's wrath.

How are you different from Roman Catholics (except the things you believe Scripture "teaches")? You aren't.

 

[JonC]

Galatians 3:13, Christ became a curse FOR (INSTEAD OF) US. Can you still not see this?

Yes, I do see what you are saying. I believed, preached, taught, and defended your view for decades.

But that is NOT what the word means. You are changing words to make the verse say "instead of". Christ became a curse FOR (in our interest, gon our behalf) us. Not "instead of us".

 

[SavedByGrace]

A couple of issues here.

First, the word translated "propitiation" does not mean "appease". The passage is not saying that Christ "propitiayes" but IS the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World. The subject is Christ. He is OUR propitiation. In Him WE escape the wrath to come.

The word translated "on behalf of" does not mean "instead of". Nowhere in Scripture does it mean "instead of".

ἱλαστήριος in Romans 3:25, Thayer Greek lexicon, "relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory". Which is the neuter of a derivative of ἱλάσκομαι, as used in Hebrews 2:17, "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people". The Greek lexicon of Liddell and Scott, defines this verb as "appease", as one of its meanings.

As shown, the Greek preposition ὑπέρ does also mean INSTEAD OF. How can you ignore this?

 

[Iconoclast]

reader comments part 3;
You have been given scripture. You simply dismiss it and say, “t’ant what it says”.

Isaiah 53 says He was pierced for our transgressions. Iconoclast just gave powerful explanation of the word “atonement”.

You simply refuse to believe what scripture clearly teaches and then accuse everyone else of believing extra biblical philosophy or some such attack.

That is fine, be convinced in your own mind.

I am amazed at the people who think seemingly the wrath of man poured out on Christ paid for our sin. Or we can be freed from the penalty of sin without someone taking the wrath we deserve.
Jon, how many angels can fit on the tip of a pin?
Personally, I couldn't care less what the technical name men have given to what Jesus did. What I care about is that Jesus blood was sufficient and effective to atone for my sin. I see that indeed it is and that Jesus satisfied the Father's requirement.
There is a legal obligation I could not fulfill. Jesus fulfilled that legal obligation on my behalf.
Whatever people want to call it and whatever petty nuance people want to nitpick at, is not my concern. My concern is that Christ is enough and by faith I believe he is.

The thing that would clearly help me would be for you to clearly state exactly what you believe the atonement did accomplish

John,
Using the verses without understanding the word meanings properly is not to have the verse.

wrath
atonement
redeemed
reconciled
propitiation
peace
bought with a price...
sacrifice
substitution
These have biblical meanings.
You gloss over them most recently in your "forbearance" postings.
You are suggesting that you and Agedman are among the few that can see it....while everyone on our bookshelves has not seen it.
I am staying with those on my bookshelf.
They have looked at all the verses also.
They see scripture clearly teaching PSA.
I gave a helpful link frpm Berkofs Systematic Theology.
I like that he displays how others tried to offer ideas that were also defective.
No one says Christ is not the victor.
He is.

The idea that the wrath of God being poured on Jesus isnt in scripture has been destroyed on this board. Simply saying scripture doesnt say that is not a defense of that position.
But Gods law, and Gods justice are not to be short changed to declare this.

Its not me who does not understand Gods justice, it is you

How does God overlook and cover up sin, yet still remain just? Something more than a cover up or looking the other way has to be done by a just judge.

How can sin be redeemed and the sinner be justified if the price of sin is not paid?

How can justification occur if the person is still guilty and the price is not paid.

You are not addressing the issue. Essentially you seem to think that God wrote the law, but doesn't hold himself responsible to judge according to the law he created.

Agedman, you are trying to explain away the scripture and ultimately express that God is not just.
I know you would never say that about God so I can only conclude you simply aren't thinking through the ramifications of your present position.
In Christ we are freed from condemnation. How were we set free from that condemnation, John. How is it that we are found in Christ?

God gave the law and it is the law that condemns us. The wages of that law breaking required the sentence of death. God the Son didn't die because of what he did. He died because of what I did.

Jon, I bolded and posted in red the statement that comes across as graceless, works based, salvation. You stated:
"If we do not die to the flesh then we also will face God's wrath.

But if we do die to the flesh, if we are born again,"

Jon, we were dead in our trespasses and sins. God's wrath was upon us. But God made us alive with Christ. By grace we were saved.

Our salvation is entirely by God's gracious choice.
Jon, if sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain, of what value is the sacrificial system that God ordered for Israel. It seems you are trying to make God's word null and void of any purpose.
Please share that verse that says our sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain.

Jon, neither of these two verses say anything to support your claim that our sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain. How do you extract anything close to your assertion from those two verses? They have nothing to do with your assertion. Are these actually the verses you are using as your reason for the view you hold?
These verses are for Christians. Followers of Christ. I find your prooftexts very odd.

Once again, these verses do not support your assertion.

As to your last paragraph, it is clear you have constructed a position with no biblical support. Take your own advice.

Jon, you have simply made baseless claims in your post.
I have provided both Old Testament foreshadowing and then connected it to New Testament, not by any philosophy, but purely because the New Testament writers do the connecting for us.
When you have addressed me, you have provided no legitimate proof text from the Bible. Therefore, it seems obvious you are openly guilty of what you have accused me of doing. Nowhere do you make a solid biblical case for whatever your mystery theory is.