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

[Aaron]

Is there any mention of the Resurrection of the Dead in Exodus 3:6?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

It is hardly surprising that many Christians think that "justified" and "righteous" are different words - they are! That they come from the same dik- root is, of course true, but one is a verb and the other is a noun. If you think that in Romans 3:10, 'There is none righteous, no, not one' means the same as 'there is none justified, no, not one,' then we're all in big trouble!

 

[JonC]

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?

You are adding in "substitution" and then asking a question.

Yes, Christ was forsaken to suffer and die on the Cross. He was not abandoned. He was crying out to the Father in reliance on His righteousness (as demonstrated by God's previous deliverance of those who were forsaken to suffer). Read Psalm 22 in its entirety.

 

[JonC]

It is hardly surprising that many Christians think that "justified" and "righteous" are different words - they are! That they come from the same dik- root is, of course true, but one is a verb and the other is a noun. If you think that in Romans 3:10, 'There is none righteous, no, not one' means the same as 'there is none justified, no, not one,' then we're all in big trouble!

Yes, it actually does mean the sane thing. There are none that meets God's standard of righteousness, His standard of justness. All are unrughteous....unjust.

δίκαιος is translated righteous in Romans 3:10.
In John 5 it is translated "just" (and my judgment is just)

God is δίκαιος (just....or righteous....same word) and the one who justifies.

God's wats are just and true....or righteous and true....same word.

 

[37818]

You are adding in "substitution" and then asking a question.

Yes, Christ was forsaken to suffer and die on the Cross. He was not abandoned. He was crying out to the Father in reliance on His righteousness (as demonstrated by God's previous deliverance of those who were forsaken to suffer). Read Psalm 22 in its entirety.

Yes. There is a parallel to the lost, Mark 9:48, ". . . their worm dieth not . . . " from Isaiah 66:24, ". . . for their worm shall not die . . ." to Psalms 22:6, ". . . I am a worm . . . ." Which goes to the mortality of the soul, Ezekiel 18:4 and the eternal suffering of the perishing, Matthew 10:28, Mark 9:48, ". . . the fire is not quenched."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, it actually does mean the sane thing. There are none that meets God's standard of righteousness, His standard of justness. All are unrughteous....unjust.

δίκαιος is translated righteous in Romans 3:10.
In John 5 it is translated "just" (and my judgment is just)

God is δίκαιος (just....or righteous....same word) and the one who justifies.

God's wats are just and true....or righteous and true....same word.

Ah! You are (not very) subtly changing what you said.

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)

'Just' and 'righteous' are synonyms, in Greek, at least, but 'justified' and 'righteous' are not. QED. Romans 3:10. When God justifies a sinner, He declares him to be righteous. But God never righteouses a sinner. Got it now?

And atonement is not the same as to reconciliation, however you try and dress it up. "The explanation of this English word [atonement] as being 'at-one-ment' is entirely fanciful" (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary). If you know of any authoritative source that declares them to be synonyms, I shall be interested to know of it. We are reconciled to God by the atoning sacrifice or (better) propitiation made to the Father on our behalf by our Lord Jesus Christ.

I worked out what you meant by "the sane thing" and I deciphered "unrughteous" but I don't know what God's "wats" are; you'll have to explain that.[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

Ah! You are (not very) subtly changing what you said.

'Just' and 'righteous' are synonyms, in Greek, at least, but 'justified' and 'righteous' are not. QED. Romans 3:10. When God justifies a sinner, He declares him to be righteous. But God never righteouses a sinner. Got it now?

And atonement is not the same as to reconciliation, however you try and dress it up. "The explanation of this English word [atonement] as being 'at-one-ment' is entirely fanciful" (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary). If you know of any authoritative source that declares them to be synonyms, I shall be interested to know of it. We are reconciled to God by the atoning sacrifice or (better) propitiation made to the Father on our behalf by our Lord Jesus Christ.

I worked out what you meant by "the sane thing" and I deciphered "unrughteous" but I don't know what God's "wats" are; you'll have to explain that.

[/QUOTE]
While I appreciate some things reformed Roman Catholic doctrine has provided the world (I'm smoking a bowl of Presbyterian...thanks to Dr. John White) there are other things that I no longer accept (your tradition).

I have already provided definitions of "atonement", including the origin if the word.

Yea....my phone has a little bitty keyboard. And it often just makes up words. You should be symptomatic with the latter (kidding....kinda)

 

[agedman]

@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, I thought I had responded to this thread, but apparently it slipped past me.

Without breaking up your post to respond, I’ll give a broader responce.

At no time have I presented Christ as a sinner. That is what substitution presents, but transfer does not. Christ took the sin, bore the sin carried the sin, but was and remained sinless.

Some in reading from Corinthians (He became sin for us) read that as if Christ became a sinner. Never! Such denies a number of other passages.

I do not like Substitution - the word - for it, imo, leads to much mistaken presentations and views.

For example, as you possibly read how some treat the PSA view as Christ having to be punished because He took upon Himself sin, and God Must punish Sin!

Well, that sounds good and evangelist use it, but it isn’t consistent with Scriptures. It is the thinking the Jews had when they questioned the coming doom by a foreign ungodly army saying, “Gods cannot look upon sin.” Wrong thinking!

Throughout Scriptures God and Christ forgive sin, even without a sacrifice.

This in no manner removes wrath. Rather as Romans lists the qualifications for God’s wrath, it does in no manner fit the crucifixion.

One last point.

The Father and Son never were opposed to each other. As the Father spoke and did, the Son copied. What then was meant by the Garden prayer and request?

It was not dread, or fear as some posted, For Christ states early that reason He came to this earth. He knew down to the micron the depth of each lash, the damage of each blow, the attitude of each heart, long before the time of crucifixion. There were no surprises, and nothing that He was not completely in charge over.

Just as the High Priest had complete control over the proceedings of the yearly sacrifice, our High Priest also.

This is another reason I find no wrath coming from God at the crucifixion. Rather the plea of forgiveness for those that did not know what they were doing. Being in total control of every aspect.

imo, His body temperature rose, and the sweating like blood was the natural reaction the physical body has to highest stress situations. Because our Lord knew every aspect, His body (as human) would respond accordingly even though He would appear calm.

There are many humiliating aspects of the Roman interrogation and crucifixion the history opens, and the Scriptures very kindly do not mention. Most vile, most humiliating, most painful. Yet, our Lord spoke that believers would also drink that same cup. Paul (imo) was a bit proud he carried the marks. Perhaps another reason Wrath from God was not shown at the crucifixion, for then believers would expect wrath from God, too.

ok that is enough for this post.