Doctrine of the Trinity - Stated or Implied?

[JonC]

It is not, of course, a presupposition, and it will not be such however often you claim it is. It is the necessary consequence of your own beliefs as described above. Here we are again:
-QUOTE="JonC"] I never disagreed that Christ suffered for us the death, punishment and curse due fallen humanity as the penalty of sin

If indignation and wrath are God's settled position against sinners (Romans 2:8) then that indignation and wrath is due to fallen humanity, and Christ must suffer them on our behalf.

There is nothing new in this. I have been quoting Psalm 7:11 to you for a couple of years but you haven't seen the necessary implications of verses like these.[/QUOTE]
What I mean by "presupposition" is what you see as "implied" in the text. These are the conclusions you draw (the "if - then" ideas you bring into your interpretation). And yes, these are presuppositions.

You and I agree that Christ suffered for us the death, punishment, and curse due fallen humanity as the penalty of sin. I see this as Christ suffering in accordance to God's predetermined plan at the hands of godless men, being put to death in the flesh He made us alive in the spirit. You see this as God being wrathful to His Son, punishing Him for the sins of the elect, thereby satisfying the demands of divine justice against the sins we have committed.

It's not Scripture, but your "if-then" reasoning that I do not believe. I don't share your presuppositions - the lens through which you view the Atonement - as I once did because I found them flawed. You see what you assume as a "necessary consequence", but of course, it isn't.

 

[JonC]

We have to know be able to identify our presuppositions. This is the problem we've been having here. I hold that we are living in the Tribulation period because I presuppose those who are "clothed in white robes" are those who die during this age (probably a few more presuppositions there as well). But I don't pretend this is the only way to understand Scripture. If we were discussing that topic, then we would be discussing what each of us brings into the text.

Here it appears that some cannot see that they bring anything into the text, although what they claim is not exactly there.

 

[agedman]

First, I will admit that i am not sure just what the wrath of God entails.

And I probably should have put it this way, that the wrath of God needed satisfaction and was so satisfied in the obedient death of the Son of God. In the pouring forth of, the soul of the flesh in the blood, Lev 17:11.

However would that require - All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. - being he was sinless?

Humankind have the concept of appeasing a god by bringing some offering. Even the most heathen cultures have some ritual of appeasement offerings that appeal to a god.

But, God is not appeased in such a manner. Hebrews 10:4 clearly states that offerings of even bulls and goats did not truly appease God, but were "shadows", "types" of that which Christ would accomplish.

When considering that all "appeasement" offerings were "types," then each expression of "wrath" cannot be "for sin" for there is no appeasement offering "for sin" that was not a type of that which was picturing Christ.

Do not be alarmed, the examination is not that of justice for wrong, but the ability of humans to right a wrong by payment or by service. If one trots off in alarm that this old man is suggesting God is not offended by wrong or does not respond to wrong, then the whole point is missed. It is not that God is benign, but that NOTHING can appease the wrath of God! EVERY OT offering did not appease, it was a picture of what would appease.

For what manner then is this "wrath of God" displayed or if not what was displayed at the crucifixion?

Two answers are offered.

Under PST the typical answer involves God anger over sin needing to be justly paid. Some level of payment demanded satisfaction, some monstrous load of wrath that no human could bear needed carried, some overwhelming surge of anger of injustice done to God had to be faced down...

The problem is that no matter the payment, even the life of innocent (bulls and goats...) could not work such a miracle as to even partially assuage such. In reality, God cared nothing about the offering in the matter of appeasement, and focused upon the heart. Those that looked lived. Those that trusted obeyed. Those that believed are redeemed...

The OT blood shed in the sacrifice was NEVER shed in some demonstration of wrath. Unless the priest(s) were unworthy by offering "strange" or by evil intent, there is not a single sign of wrath.

Certainly, if there was a picture of such wrath, the innocent bulls and goats would have been severely treated, tortuously mutilated, inhumanely savaged, just as such a "type" would have most surely needed to portray. But that was never pictured.

The other answer is that the "wrath of God" throughout the Scriptures is instructive.

Such instruction is not foreign thinking but is that typically displayed of any good parent, who uses discipline (sometimes even seemingly harsh discipline) to mold character and show the standard of acceptability. God is constantly needing to demonstrate to the "stiff necked" the standard of Holy, Justice, Love, Compassion,... and other significant attributes of His.

It is such seen at the crucifixion. There was no "wrath of God poured out on the Son," but signs (earthquakes, sun darkened, veil torn,...) shown that were identifiers, indicators, that the typical temple educated Jew could not mistake. Even that Centurion posted before the cross primarily for crowd control remarked validation as "this was truly the Son of God" (Matthews 27, Mark 15, Luke 23). Not a single sign of wrath poured out be God upon the Son was evidenced at the cross.



The failure of ANY theory that embraces some "wrath of God poured out on the Son" thinking is the complete lack of support by Scriptures.

Scriptures show God using wrath as instruction, humankind view it as judgmental, and even push back claiming it unfair.

But, Isaiah states that it "pleased" God, not angered Him, not made Him wrathful, not demanding reparations for offense.

There was rejoicing in heaven not wrath.

 

[agedman]

Do I understand that you and @JonC now accept my definition of Penal Substitution?

So how do we deal with Romans 2:8? 'But to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness-- indignation and wrath.' So the penalty for sin is indignation and wrath from God. If Christ has 'suffered for us the death, punishment and curse due fallen humanity as the penalty of sin,' then He must have suffered the 'indignation and wrath' of God. This is what the Westminster Confession calls 'good and necessary consequence', and the 1689 Confession calls being 'necessarily contained' in Scripture.

CONTEXT!!!!

Romans 2:8 is contextual of the final judgment.

IT IS NOT a discussion of how God pours out His wrath on the Son.

You are attempting to put the judgment of "sin" as aligned with the wrath of God, and not that rejection of "the truth and obedience" ( that of Redemption by Christ).

IF there were a "judgment of sin" payment, then eventually all would ascend from the flames. This is the teaching of both the RCC and the Mormons. They consider that God cannot condemn to eternity that which has "payment" attached to it. For should there be "payment demand" then it follows that some measure of satisfaction is stated as fulfillment for the demand.

"There is, therefore, no condemnation..." (Romans) indicates there once was a condemnation. What was the single unique item that separates those condemned and those not condemned?

Sin????

or

Belief???

 

[JonC]

Humankind have the concept of appeasing a god by bringing some offering. Even the most heathen cultures have some ritual of appeasement offerings that appeal to a god.

But, God is not appeased in such a manner. Hebrews 10:4 clearly states that offerings of even bulls and goats did not truly appease God, but were "shadows", "types" of that which Christ would accomplish.

When considering that all "appeasement" offerings were "types," then each expression of "wrath" cannot be "for sin" for there is no appeasement offering "for sin" that was not a type of that which was picturing Christ.

Do not be alarmed, the examination is not that of justice for wrong, but the ability of humans to right a wrong by payment or by service. If one trots off in alarm that this old man is suggesting God is not offended by wrong or does not respond to wrong, then the whole point is missed. It is not that God is benign, but that NOTHING can appease the wrath of God! EVERY OT offering did not appease, it was a picture of what would appease.

For what manner then is this "wrath of God" displayed or if not what was displayed at the crucifixion?

Two answers are offered.

Under PST the typical answer involves God anger over sin needing to be justly paid. Some level of payment demanded satisfaction, some monstrous load of wrath that no human could bear needed carried, some overwhelming surge of anger of injustice done to God had to be faced down...

The problem is that no matter the payment, even the life of innocent (bulls and goats...) could not work such a miracle as to even partially assuage such. In reality, God cared nothing about the offering in the matter of appeasement, and focused upon the heart. Those that looked lived. Those that trusted obeyed. Those that believed are redeemed...

The OT blood shed in the sacrifice was NEVER shed in some demonstration of wrath. Unless the priest(s) were unworthy by offering "strange" or by evil intent, there is not a single sign of wrath.

Certainly, if there was a picture of such wrath, the innocent bulls and goats would have been severely treated, tortuously mutilated, inhumanely savaged, just as such a "type" would have most surely needed to portray. But that was never pictured.

The other answer is that the "wrath of God" throughout the Scriptures is instructive.

Such instruction is not foreign thinking but is that typically displayed of any good parent, who uses discipline (sometimes even seemingly harsh discipline) to mold character and show the standard of acceptability. God is constantly needing to demonstrate to the "stiff necked" the standard of Holy, Justice, Love, Compassion,... and other significant attributes of His.

It is such seen at the crucifixion. There was no "wrath of God poured out on the Son," but signs (earthquakes, sun darkened, veil torn,...) shown that were identifiers, indicators, that the typical temple educated Jew could not mistake. Even that Centurion posted before the cross primarily for crowd control remarked validation as "this was truly the Son of God" (Matthews 27, Mark 15, Luke 23). Not a single sign of wrath poured out be God upon the Son was evidenced at the cross.



The failure of ANY theory that embraces some "wrath of God poured out on the Son" thinking is the complete lack of support by Scriptures.

Scriptures show God using wrath as instruction, humankind view it as judgmental, and even push back claiming it unfair.

But, Isaiah states that it "pleased" God, not angered Him, not made Him wrathful, not demanding reparations for offense.

There was rejoicing in heaven not wrath.

Amen! And Scripture points directly to the obedience of Christ, not God expending His wrath but God sending His Beloved Son. Very well said, brother.

 

[Yeshua1]

Amen! And Scripture points directly to the obedience of Christ, not God expending His wrath but God sending His Beloved Son. Very well said, brother.

God wrath is upon all persons who commit sin, its just that they keep on building up daily stored judgement coming for sinning!

 

[agedman]

God wrath is upon all persons who commit sin, its just that they keep on building up daily stored judgement coming for sinning!

Agreed, for this is found in Romans 2.

Be careful though to not place Christ in the same frame as a person who sinned.

He knew no sin.

He bore our sin.

Paul shared that the Father made (caused, manufactured) Christ without sin, sin on our behalf... (2 Corinthians 5)

If I recall correctly, the “sin on our behalf” is more than easily communicated in English, because it is an expansive and extensive statement that includes not just the action but the purpose of the action. That there was greater then sin at issue, but “on our behalf” excites the action of Christ as one appointing a benefit, the ability to endow, and proclaim ownership.

Again, I submit to the authority of those who remain fervent in the languages. Perhaps they will take time to develop or show my failure of accurate recall.

Lacking other authority, I may be completely wrong about this verse, so please consult others.

 

[robycop3]

I believe the existence of the HOLY TRINITY, the three personages of the one Godhead, is confirmed by the story of Jesus' baptism where all 3 Personages were manifest, but physically separate.

Besides, Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I." Not even Jesus can be greater than Himself!

The term "Holy Trinity" is an English shortcut for mention of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit collectively. While that term, not being in existence when the Scriptures were written, isn't found in them, it's clearly seen in them by unmistakable implication.

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed, for this is found in Romans 2.

Be careful though to not place Christ in the same frame as a person who sinned.

He knew no sin.

He bore our sin.

Paul shared that the Father made (caused, manufactured) Christ without sin, sin on our behalf... (2 Corinthians 5)

If I recall correctly, the “sin on our behalf” is more than easily communicated in English, because it is an expansive and extensive statement that includes not just the action but the purpose of the action. That there was greater then sin at issue, but “on our behalf” excites the action of Christ as one appointing a benefit, the ability to endow, and proclaim ownership.

Again, I submit to the authority of those who remain fervent in the languages. Perhaps they will take time to develop or show my failure of accurate recall.

Lacking other authority, I may be completely wrong about this verse, so please consult others.

When Jesus became our sin bearer, the father treated Him in that state as being a sinner, and so God had to treat Him as any lost sinner, so he did experience wrath of god, and being forsaken by God those 3 Hours!