In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[atpollard]

Romans 3:23-26 is sometimes considered a core area of teaching. Here Jesus is shown being put forth as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

I went and looked that up. I wish I were better at Greek, but the link to Thayer's for the word [G2435] ("propitiation" in ESV) was fascinating ...

ἱλαστήριος, ἱλαστηρια, ἱλαστήριον (ἱλάσκομαι, which see), relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory: μνῆμα ἱλαστήριον, a monument built to propitiate God, Josephus, Antiquities 16, 7, 1; ἱλαστήριος θάνατος, 4 Macc. 17:22; χεῖρας ἱκετηριους, εἰ βούλει δέ ἱλαστηριους, ἐκτείνας Θεῷ, Niceph. in act. SS. edition Mai, vol. v., p. 335, 17. Neuter τό ἱλαστήριον, as a substantive, a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation (German Versöhnungs- oderSühnmittel); cf. Winer's Grammar, 96 (91); (592 (551)). So used of:

1. the well-known cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins were expiated); hence, the lid of expiation, the propitiatory, Vulg.propitiatorium; Luth.Gnadensruhl (A. V. mercy-seat): Hebrews 9:5 (the Sept. Exodus 25:18ff; Leviticus 16:2, etc.; more fully ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα, Exodus 25:17; Exodus 38:7 (Exodus 37:6), for the Hebrew כַּפֹּרֶת, from כִּפֶּר to cover, namely, sins, i. e. to pardon). Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Luther, Grotius, Tholuck, Wilke, Philippi, Umbreit (Cremer (4te Aufl.)) and others give this meaning to the word also in Romans 3:25, viz. that Christ, besprinkled with his own blood, was truly that which the cover or 'mercy-seat' had been typically, i. e., the sign and pledge of expiation; but in opposed to this interpretation see Fritzsche, Meyer, Van Hengel (Godet, Oltramare) and others at the passage

2. an expiatory sacrifice; a piacular victim (Vulg.propitiatio): Romans 3:25 (after the analogy of the words χαριστηρια sacrifices expressive of gratitude, thank-offerings, σωτηρία sacrifices for safety obtained. On the other hand, in Dio Chrysostom or. 11, 121, p. 355, Reiske edition, the reference is not to a sacrifice but to a monument, as the preceding words show: καταλείψειν γάρ αὐτούς ἀνάθημα κάλλιστον καί μέγιστον τῇ Ἀθηνα καί ἐπιγράψειν, ἱλαστήριον Ἀχαιοι τῇ Ἰλιαδι). (See the full discussion of the word in Dr. Jets. Morison, Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 281-303.)

From this I gleaned TWO fascinating bits of information:

1. It is normally used to refer to a "monument" rather than the actual "sacrifice" (dead animal placed on that monument). It is the thing the blood was poured on to obtain forgiveness and make atonement.

2. The other place in the NT that exact word is used, it is describing the "mercy seat" on the Ark of the Covenant ... the gold lid unto which the blood of the sacrifice was poured to atone for the sin of the people.

Does that make Jesus the "MERCY SEAT" that obtains our forgiveness rather than the dead animal that was killed by a priest?
[In Romans 3:23-26, I mean.]

Romans 3:21-26 [ESV] (the whole paragraph)
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

[JesusFan]

Well summarized.
Even if one disagrees that "Historical Christianity" believed as you claim ... it clearly articulates the "difference" between Penal Substitution and its alternative.

But he is begging the question, as like Nt Wrong, he is assuming here that exactly how apostles saw this issue themselves, is reading all scripture thru the lens Penal substitution is bogus period, and still cannot account for what happens to the wrath of God stored up to be applied towards us while we were still in Adam, not yet found to be in Christ, and that all Reformed and many Baptists are just assuming reading into the scriptures their view, while he is not doing very same thing himself?

 

[JesusFan]

Where exactly (in scripture) is this taught?
I am only asking in order to go and read the exact wording and surrounding context to conform proper exegesis supporting this claim.

In other words, "Who says God does not just forgive?" as in John 3:18 ([NLT] "There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God's one and only Son.")

Believes though in what/ That Jesus is God incarnate, and that by His work done on our behalf we are saved, so its that we see him in the light of being the slain lamb of God who bore in Himself our sins, wrath and condemnation of The Father towards us,

 

[JesusFan]

I would just say that historical Christianity does not have a unified belief to consider. The atonement was theologically undeveloped. It cannot refute a theory that at the same time was claimed to be unknown, and thus wherever a ECF quote is found that might support penal substitution it is rejected out of hand for the very same reason.

It was God's plan that Jesus suffer and die and it was unjust, both from God's point of view, and as Pilot even admitted, Jesus actually won his case. This is not something disputed by those who hold to penal substitution.

I certainly don't blame, and I have not come across any advocate of penal substitution who does this, but the fact that at a time in church history there was no organized and written treatise on the precise meaning of the atonement is not a problem or an example of wrongdoing on their part. That does not mean that something is necessarily more prone to error if it does come eventually either.

This is true. And you have to remember that Jesus later held up the cup, representing his blood, and said "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins". ESV.
So somehow the stored up wrath is indeed connected to the shedding of Christ's blood, which signified a violent death, which we know involved a lot of suffering. And the suffering was connected to God's wrath as we all agree. And the wrath was because of our sin, which we all agree Jesus bore. I say that Jesus bearing my sin that I was obligated to bear because I could not bear it could be described as Jesus bearing it "instead of" me. That is substitution. Not only is it substitution but the argument that is being made here, that the whole issue is about incorrectly using the word "instead of" and thus we have the gospel wrong is not found anywhere else. There are all kinds of critique of penal substitution but that argument is not used because it is so obviously ridiculous.

just seems that many today reject the notion of wrath of God, that somehow it would be "cosmic child abuse" to have the father judge and place upon His own Son our due wrath and condemnation.

Problem is that unless He did that, there would be no basis for God to declare us free of condemnation, as that would not have been paid and atoned for as of yet.

 

[atpollard]

Believes though in what/ That Jesus is God incarnate, and that by His work done on our behalf we are saved, so its that we see him in the light of being the slain lamb of God who bore in Himself our sins, wrath and condemnation of The Father towards us,

Here, let me help you. Here is every NT verse in ESV containing the word “WRATH”. Just point out where the WRATH of God is owed to the SAINTS or where the WRATH of God is directed against the SON:

[Mat 3:7 ESV] 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
[Luk 3:7 ESV] 7 He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
[Luk 4:28 ESV] 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.
[Luk 21:23 ESV] 23 Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.
[Jhn 3:36 ESV] 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
[Rom 1:18 ESV] 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
[Rom 2:5, 8 ESV] 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. ... 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
[Rom 3:5 ESV] 5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)
[Rom 4:15 ESV] 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
[Rom 5:9 ESV] 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
[Rom 9:22 ESV] 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
[Rom 12:19 ESV] 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
[Rom 13:4-5 ESV] 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
[Eph 2:3 ESV] 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
[Eph 4:31 ESV] 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
[Eph 5:6 ESV] 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
[Col 3:6, 8 ESV] 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming. ... 8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.
[1Th 1:10 ESV] 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
[1Th 2:16 ESV] 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved--so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!
[1Th 5:9 ESV] 9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
[Heb 3:11 ESV] 11 As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'"
[Heb 4:3 ESV] 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.
[Rev 6:16-17 ESV] 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"
[Rev 11:18 ESV] 18 The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth."
[Rev 12:12 ESV] 12 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"
[Rev 14:10 ESV] 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
[Rev 14:19 ESV] 19 So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
[Rev 15:1, 7 ESV] 1 Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and amazing, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is finished. ... 7 And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God who lives forever and ever,
[Rev 16:1, 19 ESV] 1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, "Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God." ... 19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath.
[Rev 19:15 ESV] 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

My issue is that I keep seeing WRATH directed at SINNERS, not at SAINTS. So I keep asking those that keep accusing me of ignoring scripture to POINT to the scripture that I am ignoring, so I can believe, too.

 

[atpollard]

But he is begging the question, as like Nt Wrong, he is assuming here that exactly how apostles saw this issue themselves, is reading all scripture thru the lens Penal substitution is bogus period, and still cannot account for what happens to the wrath of God stored up to be applied towards us while we were still in Adam, not yet found to be in Christ, and that all Reformed and many Baptists are just assuming reading into the scriptures their view, while he is not doing very same thing himself?

Irrelevant to my point. I was very clear that the TRUTH or FALSENESS of his position is irrelevant to my comment. I was offering praise for a clear and concise presentation of his position that highlights exactly how it differs from Penal Substitution Theory. His post was clear. His post was concise. His argument did present a position different from PSA.

That you abhor what he has to say is irrelevant to the point that I was making. (And I actually don’t think it was a ‘begging the question’ fallacy.)

An example of begging the question would be:

Penal Substitution is true because Jesus took the penalty that should have fallen on us.
(The proof is merely a statement of the definition)

Jesus cannot be our Penal Substitution because the Bible never makes that claim.
(No actual evidence was given, just an unsupported claim.)

 

[JonC]

Except what you now appear to hold unto is not the majority view held by either Reformed nor Baptists, and it still DOEs not adress the issue of how/when/ our sin debt obligation we owe to the Father is addressed, as there is not anyone burdened with taking on the due wrath and condemnation we incur as sinners before a Holy God

Do you now see it then as not fair and not right to have theFather judge Jesus in our place then, to take upon Himself what all lost sinners will endure in Hell eternally?

I agree it is not the majority view held by the Reformed or Baptists. The Reform came up with Penal Substitution Theory and many Baptists (not all, but most) adopted it.

The issue remains - your position is not in God's Word.

 

[DaveXR650]

Here, let me help you. Here is every NT verse in ESV containing the word “WRATH”. Just point out where the WRATH of God is owed to the SAINTS or where the WRATH of God is directed against the SON:

Thanks for putting up those quotes. You do have to be careful saying that the wrath of God is directed against the Son as if God was actually angry at Jesus. But it is sound to believe that what scripture calls "wrath" is a real thing that somehow God keeps track of and stores up, as several of those quotes clearly show.

[Rom 2:5, 8 ESV] 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous

This is illustrated here where those who are impenitent are storing up wrath for themselves. Several of the other quotes above reinforce this concept. And your question, what about saints and those who do repent?

[Eph 2:3 ESV] 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

First of all, is is scripturally sound to say that we all fit into the group storing up wrath until we did repent, as stated above.
The next question, and you see this argument being made, that the early church, and some nowadays believe - that the difference, and only difference is that one group repents and the other does not. The key is repentance or union with Christ and the atonement is all about the "At one ment" received when you join with Christ and repent. They even express this at-one-ment as being illustrated by old testament shedding of blood by saying that the life is in the blood, therefore what was being symbolized in the sacrifice was an offering of atoning life (eventually realized by Christ) which makes us at one so to speak with Christ and our life is in Him. In other words, the shed blood is not a propitiating sacrifice, but an offering of life. And we are offered union with that life. I hadn't thought much of that aspect until I read this from above:

(this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins were expiated); hence, the lid of expiation, the propitiatory,

So here we may diverge in that I do not accept that and believe that the blood was shed as symbolizing death of the one who bore the sins of the person who laid his hand on the sacrifice signifying this as such. I don't know that anyone else on here does believe that but just be aware that the idea exists.

 

[DaveXR650]

Still. Assuming that some do repent and using the above quote to help us agree that indeed God's wrath was actually on all of us until we did repent is it not fair to ask " what then happens to the wrath that was truly on those who repent but no longer is?" What happened to it?

[1Th 1:10 ESV] 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

First of all, let's agree that it's Jesus who delivers us from this wrath. Our repentance or faith, though necessary, is not what actively does this - it is Jesus who does this effectively. This very important in answer to some who question penal substitution: I again say, repentance by itself is not said to be sufficient if that was all there was.

[Rom 5:9 ESV] 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

The fact is we can repent and be saved because of the effectiveness of his shed blood, without which is no remission of sin, no matter how much we desired to repent or be at one with God.

So. God has promised punishment of sin. We sin. God is on record as claiming to be just. God also claims to forgive sin. Scripture clearly has Jesus bearing our sin, having our sin laid on him.

I'll come back. I might have to head for the basement.

 

[DaveXR650]

Anyway. The idea of penal substitution requires more than a single pathway of thought because you have more than a single thing happening.
You have repentance and faith being necessary. You have God having a revealed nature that reacts to sin with wrath and a revealed sense of righteousness and holiness that cannot be forever set aside. Nowadays some call that petty or vindictive but we should be careful if that is in scripture which we all agree on. In addition we have a proscribed remedy that if rejected makes the whole old testament sacrificial system meaningless and makes Christ's cross superfluous. And we have as I think everyone on here agreeing - Jesus himself bearing our sin.

You put all that together and you begin to see what can be described as penal substitutionary atonement. It must be included in any attempt to fully describe the atoning work of Christ. It is not necessary that we understand it because we are passive in the work of Christ. You can be saved and not know all this. Whether you can be saved and knowingly and deliberately deny the truth of this I honestly don't know.

 

[atpollard]

For me, “Penal Substitution” is a hard thing to discuss. The issue is that I agree with 90% of what is claimed.

Is there a penalty for sin? Yup, scripture says that,
Did Jesus “become sin” that we might “become righteous”? Yup, scripture says that.
Are we made clean by His blood? Yup, scripture says that.

It is just ONE SMALL POINT that I get stuck on. It is worded in different ways by different people but always centers on the word WRATH. It is typically expressed as “the wrath of God that we deserve was poured out on Jesus in our place”. My issue stems from both an unspoken assumption implied in that view and the lack of specific scriptural support.

The assumption is that God cannot “just forgive”. Somehow justice is claimed to demand its pound of flesh if God is to be able to forgive. On a philosophical level, I have an issue with that because God calls people to a higher standard than he is capable of himself. We are called to just forgive “as we have been forgiven” and to even “love our enemies”, but God cannot forgive a wrong unless SOMEONE is punished for it. Of greater concern is the eisigetical nature of the assumption. You would think that God would have mentioned something that important SOMEWHERE in scripture. However, I can find no verse that affirms that and many verses that speak of God merely “not remembering” their sin.

Then there is the contrary evidence that appears in scripture. God claims that it is WRONG for the innocent to be punished for the guilty. That makes the crucifixion one thing if Christ was put to death by “evil men” to defeat evil itself, but something different if Christ was put to death to appease God as the innocent being punished for the guilty contrary to the Law. There is also the “day of wrath”, which claims wrath is something paid to the guilty at the end after they have refused every chance to be forgiven. Wrath is always described as directed against the sinners, not the saints. Lastly, there is the dichotomy “not judged“ vs “already judged” (John 3) and “vessels of wrath” vs “vessels of honor” (Romans 9) which are different innate classes with different innate fates … but this detail of PSA treats them the same merely assigning the “judged” and “wrath” to another rather than a true “not judged” or “vessel of honor”.

In Ephesians 2:1-4, it speaks of us as WERE among the children of wrath. It does not actually say that God holds a grudge until his ‘pound of flesh’ is paid in full or that every action is still adding to a “wrath account” that must be paid in full.

Some claim objection on the grounds of “cosmic child abuse”. This is not that. This is a desire to accept what is actually said without embracing something so vitally important that is not actually stated anywhere and which is actively contradicted in places. I am uncomfortable building the cornerstone of a doctrine (transferred wrath) on the definition of “propitiation” (Romans 3) and what the sinful crowd killing Jesus “thought” God was doing (Isaiah 53).

 

[Paleouss]

For me, “Penal Substitution” is a hard thing to discuss. The issue is that I agree with 90% of what is claimed.

Greetings atpollard, I enjoyed your post here, very much.

 

[DaveXR650]

@atpollard. A couple of things. In Revelation the theme is the unfolding wrath of God on the unrepentant world. The slain saints are demanding justice and saying "how long". The fact that God calls for us to love our enemies who also live in a fallen world and are struggling like us to live does not mean that wrong is not to be judged. And the fact that describing the feeling of seeing justice undone as "wrath" helps us understand God but yes, we are so imperfect in our ability to judge wisely that we are for the most part forbidden revenge in seeking justice. No so with God.

In addition, God is a judge. Personally, I despise a judge who let's off heinous, and cruel people. God does too and that is described in scripture regarding judges who do so.

Also, we should look at what constitutes "wrath". The only way we really know wrath in another being is by what that being does. I maintain that the extreme violence of the crucifixion shows wrath. If you believe that the Trinity planned our redemption from way back in time then the idea that wicked men did this, while true at a certain level, does not explain the way Jesus died. And what happened to him under God's sovereign plan could only be described as an outpouring of "wrath". But I will say that here we are entering an area where we better tread very lightly. This is our redemption, we are passive spectators, and are given no warrant to judge God's motives and methods.

Those who say God doesn't have to have a pound of flesh are completely correct in a sense. God could have, by rights, destroyed all of us and send all of us to Hell at any time. But at the same time is it not just as true that God has not chosen just to let everything slide? The plan for our redemption is God's plan and he does not "just forgive". Those who can read all of the scripture and look at the Law, the sanctions, the requirements for holiness, the revealed plan of Jesus death and how he suffered, and come up with the overall idea that God could have just flat out forgiven everyone frankly baffle me. To speculate on what God could do is useless anyway and it gets us into the area of "possible worlds" in philosophy. We know from the actual world we live in that God chose to have Jesus suffer that death as part of a necessary plan and thus there was no other way our redemption could come about.

 

[atpollard]

We know from the actual world we live in that God chose to have Jesus suffer that death as part of a necessary plan and thus there was no other way our redemption could come about.

I 100% agree. For that reason I lean towards what I probably misdefine as “Christus Victor” … Jesus did not need to die to satisfy the wrath of God, but rather, Jesus chose to die to accomplish all those things that scripture clearly states that Jesus DID accomplish: our redemption, victory over sin, victory over death, glory to God, reconciliation, etc.

WRATH is something that remains on those that “reject so great a salvation”, not a debt that Jesus paid to the Father.
JESUS’ death is about God obtaining victory (“Our good and His glory” as the catechism describes it).

 

[Paleouss]

It is just ONE SMALL POINT that I get stuck on. It is worded in different ways by different people but always centers on the word WRATH.

Do you think that the word "wrath" falls under the category of "justice"? Actually asking your thoughts.

Let me first paint a picture and then will later go back and discuss verses. The heading to this list will be...

God being consistent with His nature (not creating divine dissonance)

1. God is justice and grace.

So however God brings reconciliation to mankind, it will be consistent with His nature. It will consist of both justice and grace.

2. What is hard to understand for mankind, God has left picture stories throughout history to understand.
3. One of those picture stories is Israel, the nation and people, as a microcosm of the world as a whole.
4. God brings the Jewish people out of Egypt (sin), killing the Egyptian slave masters with he Red Sea (washing sin away by baptism of Spirit), has wrath on those that were disobedient and did not believe at the base of Mt. Sinai (Justice an judgement) and brought into the promised land (salvation and promise of being in heaven with God).

To condense what I am trying to say, "wrath" within the Bible is the picture story within history of God's justice (it is a picture of judgement). It is a picture of who God is. But God is not just justice and justice was never intended from the beginning to be for just wrath. Justice, in the beginning of the giving of the Law, was a piece of the stratagem of God to reconcile mankind to Himself and give grace to those that believe.

The Arc of the Covenant contained the Moral Law. Every year the High Priest sprinkled blood upon the Bema Seat (lid) satisfying ( symbolically covering) the objects and what they represented within the Arc. To me, it seems that what those tablets represent in the Arc are, justice.

To me wrath falls under the heading of justice. I, myself, have some objections to focusing on wrath within the Penal Substitution and prefer to say justice.

Have in-laws here, so maybe didn't formulate this post as well as I would have wanted.

What do you think?


Peace to you brother

 

[Christforums]

the assumption is that God cannot “just forgive”. Somehow justice is claimed to demand its pound of flesh if God is to be able to forgive. On a philosophical level, I have an issue with that because God calls people to a higher standard than he is capable of himself. We are called to just forgive “as we have been forgiven” and to even “love our enemies”, but God cannot forgive a wrong unless SOMEONE is punished for it. Of greater concern is the eisigetical nature of the assumption. You would think that God would have mentioned something that important SOMEWHERE in scripture. However, I can find no verse that affirms that and many verses that speak of God merely “not remembering” their sin.

Some thoughts,

G-d is Holy and holy is the summation of all his characteristics and attributes. G-d cannot for example forgive at the expense of His justice, because G-d is not simply just He is Holy-Just, God is not righteous He is Holy-righteous. G-d is not love He is Holy-love. Holy should always be at the forefront of mind in theology.

Often times G-d is said to "remember," which doesn't mean He had forgotten but rather when He remembers His promises are brought to the forefront of mind G-d is omniscient. For example, G-d remembered after a long time during His people's Babylonian captivity.

A shrine or altar made in memory could be used as an example, as that is not the orthodox way to remember, but rather the shedding of blood on the altar. The shedding of blood has throughout Scripture been present in not only temporary atonements but propitiations for sins. Perhaps, the propitiation satisfies G-d because the sinner acknowledges the seriousness of sin? Not only affecting the individual but the innocent, family, community, nation etc. Because of the sin of Adam sin and death entered into the World. Atonements communicate both confession and repentance in which are necessary for justification. Another way of understanding the propitiation is that the wrath of G-d is not deflected but rather G-d is satisfied. Exactly what is satisfied? Is G-d simply angry and needs to be appeased from time to time, or is something required of the sinner? Oftentimes wrath is used to communicate the sins of the reprobate trespassing against G-d. Whereas chastisement is used rather than wrath to communicate between the Holy G-d and His covenant people in holiness.

 

[DaveXR650]

God being consistent with His nature (not creating divine dissonance)

That's key. I recommend anyone who wants to hear the case made for this aspect of the atonement and on the idea of God's wrath falling on Christ take a look at the Martyn Lloyd-Jones website with all his sermons available on audio. Sermon #2100 is on this subject.

 

[atpollard]

To me wrath falls under the heading of justice. I, myself, have some objections to focusing on wrath within the Penal Substitution and prefer to say justice.

What do you think?

I do not take issue with God’s RIGHT to wrath. There is nothing in the argument “we deserve punishment for our sin”, “Jesus accepted the punishment that we deserved”, “both God’s absolute JUSTICE and absolute MERCY were preserved” … that violates anything in the character of God. God certainly COULD have done that and WOULD have been completely within his right to do so.

I am uncomfortable taking it as FACT when God never EXPLICITLY states he DID do that. I am uncomfortable building on any foundation that must be inferred by reading between the lines rather than being clearly and explicitly stated. [As an aside, I believe the “L” of TULIP because it is logically inferred, but refuse to build any critical doctrine upon it as a foundation for exactly the same reason … implied but not explicitly stated.]

 

[atpollard]

Whereas chastisement is used rather than wrath to communicate between the Holy G-d and His covenant people in holiness.

A good distinction to observe.

Would anyone claim that Jesus takes our “chastisement” in our place? (The wrath due for our sins post-justification.) Is “chastisement” about JUSTICE or something else?

 

[Christforums]

I do not take issue with God’s RIGHT to wrath. There is nothing in the argument “we deserve punishment for our sin”, “Jesus accepted the punishment that we deserved”, “both God’s absolute JUSTICE and absolute MERCY were preserved” … that violates anything in the character of God. God certainly COULD have done that and WOULD have been completely within his right to do so.

I am uncomfortable taking it as FACT when God never EXPLICITLY states he DID do that. I am uncomfortable building on any foundation that must be inferred by reading between the lines rather than being clearly and explicitly stated. [As an aside, I believe the “L” of TULIP because it is logically inferred, but refuse to build any critical doctrine upon it as a foundation for exactly the same reason … implied but not explicitly stated.]

Another way to look at the atonement and propitiation of Jesus is as our Covenant head. He is accountable and responsible as the head of our covenant. Anybody who has served in the military understands this role as Covenant head. Likewise, Jesus does not simply bear the accountability and responsibility but through sanctification we are transformed in holiness.

Which would convey better your actions when disciplining your children @atpollard, do your children experience your wrath or chastisement?