-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That Christ suffered the wrath of God for our sins is confirmed by two scriptures.
- Thread starter Guido
- Start date
True.
Also true.
Also true.
Not stated by the text that I'm aware of.
Can you show where that last statement is claimed?
The problem is not the Scripture you post but your additions to that Scripture.
Christ died for our sins, He bore our sins bodily, He was made sin for us, God offered Him as a sin offering, was pleased to crush Him, lay our iniquities upon Him, the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His stripes we are healed.
What is missing in those, and your, passages that is included in the claim of the OP (what have you added)?
Scripture does not say that Christ experienced God's wrath. Additionally, Scrioture does not say that Chrust died to appease God or died instead of us.
Yup, all of this...l'm sure I've read this in the text.
Maybe it's there, and you simply don't know about it.
That's my only question as well.
Where is that part stated?
This is true, but there are a host of verses that make the message clear. There's something else behind the severe revisionism taking place here.
Peter tried to revise Christ's message to conform to his carnal understanding, and Christ didn't spare him in the rebuke.
They reduce Christ's work to a mere endurance of persecution, His prayer in the garden to the plea of a coward, they change the forgiveness of sin to a wink.
Aaron, really?
The error is the PSA, not what @JonC and I have been posting.
Perhaps, are you so uncomfortable from the exposure of Scripture truth that you consider some sinful motivating factor by @JonC and/or me?
@JonC just posted the truth concerning the Scriptures, and the claim of revision is made! How did he revise the Scriptures?
All we desire is folks take the Scriptures without agenda and preconceived notions and agree with them. Not with us. With the Scriptures.
We have pleaded that folks support their thinking with Scriptures!
Where do you find “something behind” what is happening other then the work of Scriptures causing growth in wisdom and understanding?
“Plea of a coward?”
“Endurance of persecution?”
This is how you would misrepresent what we have posted?
Was your post from righteousness? Was it a reflection of honesty when applied to the numerous threads and the contributions @JonC or I have made.
Please,
Set aside whatever prompted your post, and let us all attend to the Scriptures.
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.
We first of all need to understand that God's wrath was not against the lord Jesus, but against sin. If we look at Paul's great argument that starts in Romans 1:16, we find that in the Gospel, the 'righteousness [not, at this point, the love] of God is revealed.' It starts the great question of how a righteous God can remit punishment upon guilty sinners. And that brings us to the wrath of God. 'For the wrath of God is [present tense] revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men......' How is God wrath going to be expiated? In Chapters 2 & 3, Paul explains that this wrath applies as much to Jews as to Gentiles (Romans 3:9). God is righteous [Gk. dikaios]; of mankind we read 'There is none righteous.' How can the two parties be reconciled?
In Romans 3:24-26, we learn how. Sinners are 'justified [Gk. dikaioumenoi] freely by His grace....' But that grace, although it is free, is costly: '....through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood......' A 'propitiation' is best defined as a wrath-removing sacrifice. It has reference to the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant, where blood had to be shed before the priest could. The Lord Jesus had to suffer and die so that God's righteous anger against sin could be propitiated. If He was not bearing our sins and God's wrath against sinners, how can God be just [Gk. dikaios] as well as the justifier [Gk. dikaiounta] of the one who believes in Jesus? If He can, why did the Lord Jesus have to suffer in such a terrible way?
Only Penal Substitution meets the need of guilty sinners. The problem with other theories is that they do not understand the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Man's position before God is desperate. We need a Man who will stand in the gap before God and His righteous indignation against sin; we need an ark that will keep us safe from the waves of His wrath; we need a city of refuge into which we can run to avoid the avenger of blood; we need a cleft in the rock in which we can hide until His anger is past. The Lord Jesus Christ is all these things to us. He has lived the life of total righteousness before God that we could not live; and He has willingly received the punishment that our deeds deserve and He has expiated the wrath of God.
'On that day you will say, "O LORD, I will praise You. Though You were angry with me, Your anger is turned away and You comfort me.....' That day' is clearly the day of Jesus Christ At this point nothing is said about how God's anger is turned away, and you have to wait until Chapter 53 to find out how. 'The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.' That is penal substitution.
Martin,
All is agreeable until you posted, “Only Penal Substitution meets the need of guilty sinners. The problem with other theories is that they do not understand the exceeding sinfulness of sin.”
This is unsupportable conjecture, for we are not discussing other theories, nor do other theories present Gods wrath poured out on the Son as “divine judgement.”
You also do not assume that a discussion that has included multiple threads has not shared how such was presented that you claim only PSA does.
“We need a Man who will stand in the gap before God and His righteous indignation against sin; we need an ark that will keep us safe from the waves of His wrath; we need a city of refuge into which we can run to avoid the avenger of blood; we need a cleft in the rock in which we can hide until His anger is past. The Lord Jesus Christ is all these things to us. He has lived the life of total righteousness before God that we could not live; and He has willingly received the punishment that our deeds deserve and He has expiated the wrath of God.”
There is also agreement in the last portion, for both @JonC and I have was physically (penal- forensic) tourtured by Human hands.
However, “Substitution” is definitely a problem word which I will present in the next post I make.
Same question to JonC, how and when was the wrath of God due to us as sinners be propitiated for?
37818
Well-Known Member
@JonC
What has God's wrath to do with being holy and being just dealing with sin? James wrote regarding man, ". . . Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. . . ." So does not God use His wrath to deal with sin because of His righteousness?
What has God's wrath to do with being holy and being just dealing with sin? James wrote regarding man, ". . . Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. . . ." So does not God use His wrath to deal with sin because of His righteousness?
My thoughts upon "substitution."
Foundational to the word "subsitution" is the thinking of some exchange taking place. Such is described as "He took the punishment, the wrath, that was due us." This does seem correct from the human perspective of our demand for justice. But is it what the Scriptures teach.
First we need to attend to the wrath as part of the substitution due us.
The statement concerning justification needing some resolve of payment is misguided.
Romans states:
See the word "impute" in the above verse is considered as transfered - not substituted. There is a huge difference when it comes to application between these two words.
This verse shows no wrath attached to the justification, but a finished blessing of the Lord's resurrection. and it also show not substitutionary payment, but a fact of transferring that takes place.
A few times we see how Paul would voice his praise. "17To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen"
Now this is important, for Paul was previously discussion the Salvation brought to him through the patience of the Lord Jesus. Look at the list of attributes associated with the Lord Jesus. They are underlined.
The Scripture states:
Here then is listed the qualifications for the wrath of God. Christ met none of those qualifications, nor did the sin Christ took upon Himself meet these qualifications - for these are sins of ongoing action. These are sins in which one who continues in such is in John's words in 1 John where He shares concerning those who "continue (or practice) sinning." There is overt rebellion and mockery. There is diminishing and exchanging God for the earthy.
What has this to do with "substitution?"
Because there can be no wrath of God poured upon the Christ. He met NONE of the qualifications for such wrath.
Therefore, the claims that He was a substitute and took our wrath is in error.
Another presentation of substitution is that which is correctly related to the Bible. I personally don't like to use the word, for some have applied it wrongly to the wrath of God at the crucifixion, but Bible scholars have used the word that I use for "transferring."
For example, after the atonement sacrifice, the high priests would place his hands upon the head of the animal that was lead out into the "wilderness." This was done to symbolically show the transferring of sin to the goat - called a scapegoat.
Christ is certainly our scapegoat. And in THIS manner of transferring the word substitution is accurate.
However, just as the rest of the atonement sacrifice, there was NO wrath imparted to the goat, nothing other then leading and leaving.
Is that not what our Christ does?
Does He not lead us "out of temptation" and purge sin from us, not leaving us vulnerable and not leaving us condemned. He has taken our sins and our sorrows and left them forgiven and cleansed by His blood and His resurrection. He is our scapegoat in that the sins and offenses are remembered no more, for there is "no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus."
Therefore, I use the word transfer rather then substitute, for that is the action of the atonement.
I attempt when in discussion to accept the word substitute, but under the condition that it means transfer.
Substitute has the connotation of an exchange.
There is no "exchange" taking place at the atonement.
Careful reading and discernment of the Scriptures expresses transfer, not exchange. For exchange would cause all to immediately be without sin.
We sin until we die. If we say we have no sin, we make God a liar according to John.
So no exchange, no wrath, and substitute means transfer.
There is so much more to write, concerning verses in 1 Timothy, Isaiah 57, Romans 1, and many more.
But, I trust this thread will bring all verses into the light as God desires.
Foundational to the word "subsitution" is the thinking of some exchange taking place. Such is described as "He took the punishment, the wrath, that was due us." This does seem correct from the human perspective of our demand for justice. But is it what the Scriptures teach.
First we need to attend to the wrath as part of the substitution due us.
The statement concerning justification needing some resolve of payment is misguided.
Romans states:
In the above verse it clearly states that the resurrection and the delivering up of the Christ is "because (for) of our Justification," and "because (for) our offenses. The word because is translated "for" in other translations. It is not "eis" or "huper" but "dia." Dia carries as a preposition the thinking of through, by, because (of), for,... But one evidence is that "dia," to my little understanding is never placed in the position of being used with replacement, or in substitution.
See the word "impute" in the above verse is considered as transfered - not substituted. There is a huge difference when it comes to application between these two words.
This verse shows no wrath attached to the justification, but a finished blessing of the Lord's resurrection. and it also show not substitutionary payment, but a fact of transferring that takes place.
A few times we see how Paul would voice his praise. "17To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen"
Now this is important, for Paul was previously discussion the Salvation brought to him through the patience of the Lord Jesus. Look at the list of attributes associated with the Lord Jesus. They are underlined.
The Scripture states:
17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”f
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Here then is listed the qualifications for the wrath of God. Christ met none of those qualifications, nor did the sin Christ took upon Himself meet these qualifications - for these are sins of ongoing action. These are sins in which one who continues in such is in John's words in 1 John where He shares concerning those who "continue (or practice) sinning." There is overt rebellion and mockery. There is diminishing and exchanging God for the earthy.
What has this to do with "substitution?"
Because there can be no wrath of God poured upon the Christ. He met NONE of the qualifications for such wrath.
Therefore, the claims that He was a substitute and took our wrath is in error.
Another presentation of substitution is that which is correctly related to the Bible. I personally don't like to use the word, for some have applied it wrongly to the wrath of God at the crucifixion, but Bible scholars have used the word that I use for "transferring."
For example, after the atonement sacrifice, the high priests would place his hands upon the head of the animal that was lead out into the "wilderness." This was done to symbolically show the transferring of sin to the goat - called a scapegoat.
Christ is certainly our scapegoat. And in THIS manner of transferring the word substitution is accurate.
However, just as the rest of the atonement sacrifice, there was NO wrath imparted to the goat, nothing other then leading and leaving.
Is that not what our Christ does?
Does He not lead us "out of temptation" and purge sin from us, not leaving us vulnerable and not leaving us condemned. He has taken our sins and our sorrows and left them forgiven and cleansed by His blood and His resurrection. He is our scapegoat in that the sins and offenses are remembered no more, for there is "no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus."
Therefore, I use the word transfer rather then substitute, for that is the action of the atonement.
I attempt when in discussion to accept the word substitute, but under the condition that it means transfer.
Substitute has the connotation of an exchange.
There is no "exchange" taking place at the atonement.
Careful reading and discernment of the Scriptures expresses transfer, not exchange. For exchange would cause all to immediately be without sin.
We sin until we die. If we say we have no sin, we make God a liar according to John.
So no exchange, no wrath, and substitute means transfer.
There is so much more to write, concerning verses in 1 Timothy, Isaiah 57, Romans 1, and many more.
But, I trust this thread will bring all verses into the light as God desires.
The above post by me should help you understand.
But the short answer is found in the Scriptures where there is no wrath shown in the OT sacrificial system - UNLESS the sacrifice or priest was unworthy.
The Scriptures state "“Worthy is the Lamb who was slaughtered— to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.” (Rev. 5)
The lamb slaughtered was worthy and remains worthy for He was without sin, and taking on sin did not oblige the Father to dump wrath upon Him anymore then the Father was obliged to dump upon the OT sacrifices.
What is the focus of both the OT and NT is that the Father is satisfied, and reconciliation has been made.
Where then is the wrath?
Do not the Scriptures state the ungodly store up their wrath to be poured out?
When = Revelation 16.
What happened to the wrath appointed for US for we are yet sinners?
Colossians 2 - Christ and God nailed those decrees of the Law that were held against us to the Cross.
We are Forgiven, we are in a place of no condemnation (if one be in Christ), and we have no judgement to come other then that at the foot of our Lord when we cast our trophies before Him.
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).
Part of the problem with endorsement of the PSA thinking is that one miss-aligns the aspect of propitiation.
To some, propitiation is an appeasement of divine wrath. This is a pagan idea as seen by the host of ungodly cultures attempting to appease an angry God.
BUT God is not and angry God. In fact the Scriptures share that He laughs at humankind (psalm 59:8)
He knows we are but dust, for He made us.
When God shows divine judgement - wrath - it is for open rebellion, mockery, and exchanging His glory for the earthy. See Romans quote in the above post.
How does this fit with Propitiation?
Propitiation as an appeasement isn't to ward off God's wrath, but to gain God's fellowship. To restore that which was broken from the time of Eden.
Each sacrifice, each offering, was not based upon appeasing wrath, but to bring fellowship, restore reconciliation, and to encourage righteous living.
THAT is the correct use of Propitiation.
To some, propitiation is an appeasement of divine wrath. This is a pagan idea as seen by the host of ungodly cultures attempting to appease an angry God.
BUT God is not and angry God. In fact the Scriptures share that He laughs at humankind (psalm 59:8)
He knows we are but dust, for He made us.
When God shows divine judgement - wrath - it is for open rebellion, mockery, and exchanging His glory for the earthy. See Romans quote in the above post.
How does this fit with Propitiation?
Propitiation as an appeasement isn't to ward off God's wrath, but to gain God's fellowship. To restore that which was broken from the time of Eden.
Each sacrifice, each offering, was not based upon appeasing wrath, but to bring fellowship, restore reconciliation, and to encourage righteous living.
THAT is the correct use of Propitiation.
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.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
Bad theology.
It really is.
You and he spout the jargon, but void the meanings as I expose in post 16.