Did Jesus take on the wrath of God as propitiation for our sin?

[JesusFan]

Yet no member, thus far, has provided ANY passage that teaches Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us.

Don't you find that fact odd? You say it is in Scripture but can't find it in even one passage without adding to that passage.

We do, but you just keep on rejecting them as being "pagan and child abuse"

 

[JesusFan]

Not really. You (and @AustinC ) read into Scripture.

I could say Moses striking the rock symbolizes Israel's rejection of the Cornerstone, of the Jews handing Christ over to suffer and die at tge hands of the wicked.

At least the illustration would be accurate (Scripture tells us it was tge evil of the World that caused Christ to suffer and die, and this was God's will).

But that, too, would be using Scripture rather than dervinf doctrine from Scripture.

The Ark is the same. Somebody (I can't remember who) equated the people downing as the wrath that we escape. They miss that Noah was not sinless.

It was the Eternal plan of God to Have the Messiah be put to death as the sin bearer for his own people, to purchase them back by His own shed blood, NOT due to world or evil, but do to our own sins!

 

[JesusFan]

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

Do you see any substitution there?

peace to you

NOT when one rejects the wrath of God!

 

[JesusFan]

Berkof;https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/berkhof/SystematicTheologybyLouisBerkhof.pdf

IV. The Nature of the Atonement The doctrine of the atonement here presented is the penal substitutionary or satisfaction doctrine, which is the doctrine clearly taught by the Word of God. A. STATEMENT OF THE PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. In the discussion of this view several particulars should be stressed.

1. THE ATONEMENT IS OBJECTIVE. This means that the atonement makes its primary impression on the person to whom it is made. If a man does wrong and renders satisfaction, this satisfaction is intended to influence the person wronged and not the offending party. In the case under consideration it means that the atonement was intended to propitiate God and to reconcile Him to the sinner. This is undoubtedly the primary idea, but does not imply that we can not also speak of the sinner’s being reconciled to God. Scripture does this in more than one place, Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:19,20.


In connection with the work of Christ the words under consideration in some instances certainly denote the effecting of a change in the judicial relation between God and the sinner by removing the judicial claim. According to II Cor. 5:19 the fact that God reconciled the world to Himself is evident from this that He does not reckon unto them their sins. This does not point to any moral change in man, but to the fact that the demands of the law are met, and that God is satisfied. In Rom. 5:10,11 the term “reconciliation” can only be understood in an objective sense,

or (1) it is said to have been effected by the death of Christ, while subjective reconciliation is the result of the work of the Spirit;

(2) it was effected while we were yet enemies, that is, were still objects of God’s wrath; and


(3) it is represented in verse 11 as something objective which we receive. e. The terms lutron and antilutron are also objective terms. Christ is the Goel, the liberator, Acts 20:28; I Cor. 6:20; 7:23. He redeems sinners from the demands of God’s retributive justice. The price is paid to God by Christ as the representative of the sinner. Clearly, the Bible abundantly justifies us in ascribing an objective character to the atonement.


Moreover, strictly speaking, atonement in the proper sense of the word is always objective. There is no such thing as subjective atonement. In atonement it is always the party that has done wrong that makes amends to the one who was wronged.

The Psa has been held by both reformed and Calvinist Baptists as derived from the scriptures, and somehow NT Wright and his ilk are now trying to undue all of that!

 

[JesusFan]

Come on, brother. You are a more honest person than this post would indicate. Rather than simply responding emotionally please consider reasoning out what is written in Scripture. Misrepresenting opposing positions is beneath your character.

So what happened to that Bowl of wrath being stored up by God then?

 

[JonC]

You explain these terms away once again, doubling fown on your error.
This shows why you cannot see it.

I know you to be an honest man, so the dishonesty of this post is out of character.

I hold the exact same definition of wrath, of propitiation, of substitution, and of peace that you hold. We just differ on how this things are accomplished or fit in with our redemption. The reason is I do not accept extra-biblical theories into the doctrine of the cross. The reason why I stick so closely to God's Word (rather than diverse ideas about what they "really teach") is I believe this is a foundational doctrine essential for understanding God's Word.

As far as the word "atonement" goes we do differ. It literally means "at-one-ment" and prior to this word "one-ment" was used. They both mean the biblical word "reconciliation". You seem to reject this definition ition, but that does not change its definition. Words have meanings.

 

[agedman]

Mere physical death, of course not. That's my point. The pains of death are another matter. Did you even read my post?

Of course I did.

Does God love perfectly?

Here is the NIV presenting 1John 4:

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
​

Neither @JonC nor I do not recognize the sorrow of the Lord.
We acknowledge the suffering.

We do not attach such things as fear, sting of death, victory of the grave, and other embellishments, for Christ is the victorious one.

Knowing all down to the Molecular level of each blow, each thorn, each strip did not fear the Lord, but the body reacted just as any other’s would, which again is a sign of his total humanity. The tears were real, the pain enormous, the responsibility that which only the fullness of God could sustain,”for the wages of sin is death;” however, He did not die by such wages.

He laid His life down, and He took it up, for it is impossible for God to die.

There was no wrath from God, for God was on the cross doing all that was abundantly necessary to conquer as that victorious King.

This was His destiny, the reason for coming, and having fulfilled the mission, now is again exalted above all.

John, Paul, Peter, report no where concerning the wrath of God being poured out upon Christ.

If it is that big a foundational view, then all of them would have made much of that thinking, but they didn’t even present the work of the crucifixion in such terms.

 

[agedman]

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.

The Scriptures state, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of Sin.”

Where is the “wrath of God in that statement?

The suffering was by human hands, the decrees standing against believers were nailed to the cross, the blood brought the forgiveness.

Where there is FORGIVENESS there is NO wrath.

 

[agedman]

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.
Peace

I agree, however, this isn’t all that you and others have been presenting.

The legal obligations, according to Paul were nailed to the cross (Colossians 2).

As you state, the blood was sufficient to satisfy the Father.

Where there is satisfaction, there is no Wrath.

 

[agedman]

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.

Only in your mind.

 

[agedman]

yes I can show it often.
on a previous thread I asked like 7 or 8 questions concerning the law.
your response answered not one of those questions, but skipped along to some thing else.
you did it with most other posters here

Do you really want me to go back and show it?
Go back and read the threads. list the questions you were asked on a legal pad, then see if any of your responses answered......you will find....you responded but did not answer.

About 10 times you said we are giving Rc teaching.
Can you show where any of us quote any such source....no you cannot.
But you offered such ideas in place of an answer.

Rather than piling on questions, ask them individually that they may be attended.

I wonder of the threads have not already attended to them, but I will be very great full for you to bring them forth individually that individually they be responded.

 

[agedman]

Exactly correct.
That is why Paul puts that front and center in Romans 1:16-3:24...
He is not ashamed of the gospel because it is The once for all time sacrifice of our Lord that propitiates that wrath.
The wrath did not vanish, but was met eith the sacrificial love of Jesus....The Servant of the Lord...isa.49-66

Wrath of God certainly did not vanish, is still being stored up, and will be poured out upon the ungodly rebelliousness yet to come.

Romans does NOT teach God poured His Wrath out upon the Son.

 

[agedman]

You explain these terms away once again, doubling fown on your error.
This shows why you cannot see it.

No, my friend, @JonC gave the very standard definition of atonement taught by nearly all, even those of the world.

Synonyms for atonement are: to bring reconciliation, to bring appeasement, to pacify, to cover over.

It is the authority of our Sovereign God to overlook, cover, … sin.

It was His authority that established the Law.

It was The Law that held decrees against humankind.

Such decrees were nailed to the cross (Colossians 2).

 

[agedman]

His cup was the Bowl of wrath described by the OT Prophets God has been storing up against His wrath to come!

You are mistaken.

the cup of wrath was given to humans who were a dare in rebellion.

No prophecy states the anointed, the savior, was given the cup of wrath by God.

 

[AustinC]

No, my friend, @JonC gave the very standard definition of atonement taught by nearly all, even those of the world.

Synonyms for atonement are: to bring reconciliation, to bring appeasement, to pacify, to cover over.

It is the authority of our Sovereign God to overlook, cover, … sin.

It was His authority that established the Law.

It was The Law that held decrees against humankind.

Such decrees were nailed to the cross (Colossians 2).

Please clarify the red bolded.
Do you think the I Am overlooked or covered our sin in the death of Jesus?

Isaiah 53:4-5

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

 

[agedman]

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins, and what pleased the father was the death of Lord Jesus upon that Cross, by His shed blood lost sinners could now get reconciled back, as the wrath due us was now fully propitiated!

However, such propitiation did not come by God pouring out His Wrath upon the Son.

“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” This is true.

The Scriptures states that Hod takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
Only the wicked have Wrath of God poured out upon them.
So either Christ was wicked and therefore God was wrathful, or Christ was pure and the sacrifice pleasing to God and therefore no wrath.


It cannot be both, but one or the other.

 

[agedman]

Please clarify the red bolded.
Do you think the I Am overlooked or covered our sin in the death of Jesus?

Isaiah 53:4-5

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

Psalm 79

9Help us, O God of our salvation,
for the glory of Your name;
deliver us and atone for our sins,
for the sake of Your name.
​

His Sovereignty provides covering should He desire.

Jeremiah 18:

23But You, O LORD, know all their deadly plots against me.
Do not wipe out their guilt
or blot out their sin from Your sight.
Let them be overthrown before You;
deal with them in the time of Your anger.​

His Sovereignty provides covering should He desire.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Scriptures state, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of Sin.”

Where is the “wrath of God in that statement?

The suffering was by human hands, the decrees standing against believers were nailed to the cross, the blood brought the forgiveness.

Where there is FORGIVENESS there is NO wrath.

Humans did not punish christ for our sin. They could not touch Christ, Unless God allowed it.

Look at history. God used humans all the time to pour his wrath on Israel. During the tribulation, He will humans to pour out his wrath on this earth.

Gods wrath is against sin. If there is no payment for sin (no wrath) your still dead in your sin.

 

[agedman]

We do, but you just keep on rejecting them as being "pagan and child abuse"

This is untrue, for two reasons.

Pagans offered their own children as sacrifice material, but God did not allow for such. (Leviticus 18:21). For the wrath of God to be the appeased by the sacrifice of the Son is in fact a pagan application to the crucifixion.


The “cosmic child abuse” isn’t far from what is presented by PSA. For it does make much of the wrath of God being poured out in vengeful rage upon His Son.

Humanly speaking that is child abuse.

Neither @JonC nor I use such terms, for such is not words used other then incite emotions, and because we hold that God did not pour out Wrath upon the Son.

 

[agedman]

Humans did not punish christ for our sin. They could not touch Christ, Unless God allowed it.

Look at history. God used humans all the time to pour his wrath on Israel. During the tribulation, He will humans to pour out his wrath on this earth.

Gods wrath is against sin. If there is no payment for sin (no wrath) your still dead in your sin.

Gods wrath is targeted against the sin of rebellion.

I never stated humans punished Christ for our Sins!

Humans punished Christ. Period.

Sin was forgiven by the flood shed.

Transgression of the Law was resolve by GOD nailing them to the cross (Colossians 2)