That Christ suffered the wrath of God for our sins is confirmed by two scriptures.

[Aaron]

“Plea of a coward?”

“Endurance of persecution?”

That's what you reduce Christ and Cross to, when you insist that the Cross was merely the judgment of men.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@agedman,
It really is a grief to me that we are on separate sides in this question, since we agree on so many other matters.
However, your post #12, if I've read it correctly, shows that you really don't understand the doctrine. It is precisely because The Lord Jesus Christ is the sinless, spotless Son of God that He alone is qualified to substitute for guilty sinners like you and me..

There was none other good enough
To pay the price of sin.
He, only, could unlock the gate
Of heaven and let us in.

How could He be 'made sin for us' if He were already a sinner? It is because the Lord Jesus led a life on earth of perfect righteousness and obedience to the Father's will that it is written, 'For as by one man's [Adam's] disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.' There on the cross, all our sins and wickedness were laid upon His sinless shoulders, and His spotless righteousness is credited to us who believe.

You seem to imagine that the Father imposed this terrible punishment upon the Son against His will, but this is not the case, and indeed would be impossible. Philippians 2:5-6 (NIV) says, '.....Christ Jesus who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage [Gk. harpagmos], but made himself nothing by taking the nature of a servant.......' The Greek word harpagmos is a "hapax legommenon," that is, a word that only occurs once in the N.T. Therefore there has been some controversy over how to translate it. But some clever man, by looking at its use in other Greek texts,has shown that it means something held to one's own advantage, like a "Get out of Jail Free" card in Monopoly.

So the Lord Jesus was true God. He could not be forced to do anything outside of His own will. But He freely and gladly (Psalms 40:8) submitted to be the Father's servant here on earth.

Finally, just a word on the meaning of dia in Romans 4:25. Greek prepositions usually have an exceedingly large semantic range, and dia has the meanings of 'for,' 'because of,' 'concerning' or 'on account of.' There is nothing in the verse that requires Penal Substitution, but equally, there is nothing that rules it out. FYI, there are two verses of interest (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45) where the preposition anti is translated as 'for.' It's usual meaning is 'over against, instead of,' or 'in exchange for' (Matthew 5:38; Luke 11:11; Romans 12:17). Exactly what these things prove, I'm not sure, except that the context, not the etymology, decides the meaning.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On a thread that is now closed, I pointed out that 'atonement' and 'reconciliation' are not the same thing, but that the first opened the way for the second.
@JonC disagreed, and asked me to supply Biblical evidence, which I will now do.

2 Corinthians 5:20-21. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.
For He made [past tense] Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'
A past event (the cross, where Christ was made sin for us so that He could make atonement or propitiation for our sins) opens the way for present action in the form of preaching. We can tell sinners that the way to heaven is wide open and that they can be reconciled to God through the atoning death of Christ.
The same thing is taught in Colossians 1:20. By Christ, God has reconciled all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of the cross.
In the O.T. something similar is taught. In Isaiah 12:1-2, God was angry with us, but now His anger is turned away. This is in the day of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 11:1, 10). When Christ made propitiation for His people, God's wrath was turned away and reconciliation could be preached.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are false. First, it's not a theory. It is the Gospel and instead of being humble enough to yield to the Scriptures, you demand that the word of God yield to your own terms, which are your own and wholly arbitrary, stemming, as they do not from the customary use of language, but from your carnal notions.

You spout the jargon, but you void the meaning. You say He "suffered for sins," by being touched with the feeling of our infirmities, as if He could, like us fallen men, catch a cold or develop a toothache or hemorrhoids. But was He subject to decay? Knowing no sin, He couldn't be.

To be touched with the feeling of our infirmities doesn't mean He was touched with our diseases. It means He knew what it was to thirst, and to hunger, and to grow weary. He knew what it was to have to depend upon others and upon God for His provision and His protection.

He was not bearing our sins at His birth, or at His circumcision, or when He was sleeping through the storm on the sea. Neither was it before the judgment of the Sanhedrin, or of Pilate. The suffering He endured during His life and ministry was for righteousness' sake and for well-doing. Not for sins. To say otherwise reduces the Cross to just another case of persecution, and you insist that it was just that, asserting that it was the mere punishment of men, and not of God.

Was it just another case of persecution from which He pleaded to be spared?

The Scriptures say He once suffered for sins, and that was on the Tree, where we are told straight out that that was where He bore our sins in His body before the judgment of God.

We have been able to supply ample Scripture. You simply refuse to yield to it.

Thank you for posting some stable thoughts on the gospel.
Believers all across the board theologically are seeing through this bogus methodology.
Truth shines through.
If you get on a wrong bus or train, and discover that, it might be better to get off that one and recalculate.

 

[Iconoclast]

@agedman,
It really is a grief to me that we are on separate sides in this question, since we agree on so many other matters.
However, your post #12, if I've read it correctly, shows that you really don't understand the doctrine. It is precisely because The Lord Jesus Christ is the sinless, spotless Son of God that He alone is qualified to substitute for guilty sinners like you and me..

There was none other good enough
To pay the price of sin.
He, only, could unlock the gate
Of heaven and let us in.

How could He be 'made sin for us' if He were already a sinner? It is because the Lord Jesus led a life on earth of perfect righteousness and obedience to the Father's will that it is written, 'For as by one man's [Adam's] disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.' There on the cross, all our sins and wickedness were laid upon His sinless shoulders, and His spotless righteousness is credited to us who believe.

You seem to imagine that the Father imposed this terrible punishment upon the Son against His will, but this is not the case, and indeed would be impossible. Philippians 2:5-6 (NIV) says, '.....Christ Jesus who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage [Gk. harpagmos], but made himself nothing by taking the nature of a servant.......' The Greek word harpagmos is a "hapax legommenon," that is, a word that only occurs once in the N.T. Therefore there has been some controversy over how to translate it. But some clever man, by looking at its use in other Greek texts,has shown that it means something held to one's own advantage, like a "Get out of Jail Free" card in Monopoly.

So the Lord Jesus was true God. He could not be forced to do anything outside of His own will. But He freely and gladly (Psalms 40:8) submitted to be the Father's servant here on earth.

Finally, just a word on the meaning of dia in Romans 4:25. Greek prepositions usually have an exceedingly large semantic range, and dia has the meanings of 'for,' 'because of,' 'concerning' or 'on account of.' There is nothing in the verse that requires Penal Substitution, but equally, there is nothing that rules it out. FYI, there are two verses of interest (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45) where the preposition anti is translated as 'for.' It's usual meaning is 'over against, instead of,' or 'in exchange for' (Matthew 5:38; Luke 11:11; Romans 12:17). Exactly what these things prove, I'm not sure, except that the context, not the etymology, decides the meaning.

Thanks again for a scripturally sound post.I enjoy reading solid truth from most everyone on here.

 

[Iconoclast]

On a thread that is now closed, I pointed out that 'atonement' and 'reconciliation' are not the same thing, but that the first opened the way for the second.
@JonC disagreed, and asked me to supply Biblical evidence, which I will now do.

2 Corinthians 5:20-21. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.
For He made [past tense] Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'
A past event (the cross, where Christ was made sin for us so that He could make atonement or propitiation for our sins) opens the way for present action in the form of preaching. We can tell sinners that the way to heaven is wide open and that they can be reconciled to God through the atoning death of Christ.
The same thing is taught in Colossians 1:20. By Christ, God has reconciled all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of the cross.
In the O.T. something similar is taught. In Isaiah 12:1-2, God was angry with us, but now His anger is turned away. This is in the day of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 11:1, 10). When Christ made propitiation for His people, God's wrath was turned away and reconciliation could be preached.

Yes...sometimes the threads close before the needed correction is offered.Thanks again for these vital posts.

 

[Iconoclast]

You and he spout the jargon, but void the meanings as I expose in post 16.

Yes you did.Once the pattern that leads to error is exposed, the truth unfolds once sgain

 

[Iconoclast]

He will at Judgment. But Christ could not have experienced the wrath of a righteous God (had God committed an abomination to God, He by definition would not be righteous).

Jesus is 100% God.
Jesus is 100% man
Jesus died on the cross as the Lamb slain.
Do you deny Jesus was slain and died?
Or are you still clinging to it would be an abomination for the Trinity
[no one verse says trinity]
to have planned this by His determinate counsel and Foreknowledge?

 

[Revmitchell]

Christ suffering the wrath of God, the difference between atonement and reconciliation are both common doctrines among Christians. It is rare that those are not understood or out right rejected. So many of our hymns and praise songs lift them up.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus is 100% God.
Jesus is 100% man
Jesus died on the cross as the Lamb slain.
Do you deny Jesus was slain and died?
Or are you still clinging to it would be an abomination for the Trinity
[no one verse says trinity]
to have planned this by His determinate counsel and Foreknowledge?

Exactly right! Salvation was planned by the Triune God in eternity (Titus 1:2 etc.). Each Person plays a separate part, but they act in harmony (Ephesians 1:3-14). So it is not meaningless or heretical to say that God the Son propitiated God the Father. The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacts a punishment borne by the Son mean that they are divided or act independently. Their relationship is asymmetric, but they are mutually and inseparably engaged upon two aspects of the same action with one purpose– the salvation of guilty sinners while satisfying the justice of the Triune God.

 

[JesusFan]

He will at Judgment. But Christ could not have experienced the wrath of a righteous God (had God committed an abomination to God, He by definition would not be righteous).

Jesus is that very God who took upon Himself that due wrath and judgement so that God can freely and fully justify the sinner and still remain holy!

 

[JesusFan]

I searched it out, but couldn't find it. For years on this board I've asked those who hold Penal Substitution Theory to provide such passages. They have been unable.

They provide plenty of passages, but none actually supporting the Theory (they claim Scripture is a type of doublespeak....saying one thing but meaning another).

And they only get angry and insulting for being asked.

Again, where and how was that due wrath of God due unto us propitiated for ?

 

[Iconoclast]

Christ suffering the wrath of God, the difference between atonement and reconciliation are both common doctrines among Christians. It is rare that those are not understood or out right rejected. So many of our hymns and praise songs lift them up.

For anyone to suggest this is not the central core of the Gospel is not not have the gospel.
At the White Throne Judgment all those who haven broken the law of God will be sent into second death under Divine wrath and Condemnation justly as the saints in Rev.19 praise the Lord for His justice.

Exactly right! Salvation was planned by the Triune God in eternity (Titus 1:2 etc.). Each Person plays a separate part, but they act in harmony (Ephesians 1:3-14). So it is not meaningless or heretical to say that God the Son propitiated God the Father. The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacts a punishment borne by the Son mean that they are divided or act independently. Their relationship is asymmetric, but they are mutually and inseparably engaged upon two aspects of the same action with one purpose– the salvation of guilty sinners while satisfying the justice of the Triune God.

The trinity is in full communion with each other, and as part of our Great Salvation we get called to that,2cor13:14

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus is 100% God.
Jesus is 100% man
Jesus died on the cross as the Lamb slain.
Do you deny Jesus was slain and died?
Or are you still clinging to it would be an abomination for the Trinity
[no one verse says trinity]
to have planned this by His determinate counsel and Foreknowledge?

I still prefer to trust in the inspired Pauline Justification of Romans to what is being parroted around by some here!

 

[JonC]

Christ suffering the wrath of God, the difference between atonement and reconciliation are both common doctrines among Christians. It is rare that those are not understood or out right rejected. So many of our hymns and praise songs lift them up.

This is true. The idea that these words are different in Scripture is very common among Christians (just like the idea "justified" and "righteous" are different words in Scripture is very common among Christians). Many of our songs do make these distinctions.

And were our songs the test of faith then you might have a point.

 

[JonC]

Bad theology.

It may be "bad theology", but it is Scripture. God made foolish the wisdom of the world.

 

[37818]

It may be "bad theology", but it is Scripture. God made foolish the wisdom of the world.

God did not forsake Himself or anything else to Himself.

He will at Judgment. But Christ could not have experienced the wrath of a righteous God (had God committed an abomination to God, He by definition would not be righteous).

 

[JonC]

God did not forsake Himself or anything else to Himself.

I know God did not forsake Himself, punish Himself, or experience His own wrath. I believe the Bible.

 

[37818]

I know Hod did not forsake Himself, punish Himself, or experience His own wrath. I believe the Bible.

Yet Christ is understand to be forsaken by God on the cross Matthew 27:46, Psalms 22:1. Now what was done for those who are otherwise perishing functions as a substitution. A substitution of what?

 

[Aaron]

I know Hod did not forsake Himself, punish Himself, or experience His own wrath.

This is an appeal to, as you say, 'philosophy.'

You don't like the implications. That's all you're saying. You are not yielding to the Scriptures.