There is the Bowl of wrath, the Cup of it that Jesus was willing to endure for our sake!
-
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!
Theory of atonement, do you have one?
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
Not certain that truly credits your view or supports a thinking.
Are there no Scriptures these used, either?
Yes, I have given a boatload of those passage already, as have the Biblist and Martin!
There is no diminishing the suffering. The suffering savior endured monstrously, but so have others. He suffered on purpose for a purpose, so too, other believers.
The suffering is not always a sign of the wrath of God. It very well could be a sign.
What is the viewpoint of the rationale for the suffering. Who and why did certain people have the permission?
The Romans did what Romans did to interrogate and prepare to execute. Things done that prophecy said would take place.
The people looked and mocked, as people usually did at these spectacles. This, too, was as the prophets said would take place.
The physical aspects of being suspended on wood and dropped into the hole were done as the prophets said.
The reasons and the actions for the crucifixion were as the prophets said.
And so forth.
All this happened in human timing some 2000 years ago, yet do not the Scriptures state it indeed actually took place prior to creation?
Did God pour out His wrath, as you would describe it, twice?
If not, why not?
Was not the issue of the suffering savior a matter of sin and redemption, fulfillment of that promise made at Eden’s door?
What rage of God can be suddenly contributed to what was previously done, was prophecied would happen, and happened within the time frame of humans?
Then the boat remains empty, for as I recall, none have been posted by you.
Has it not been ask, more then once, for you to post such Scriptures?
I am not opposed to modification, if it can be shown such presents as more Scriptural.
But, the Scriptures must also be specific to the need, not as some would, use a passage and depart from it.
Why do you always go back to your man, N.T. Wright? Were you a student of his or something???? I'm talking about Scripture. If my view looks like N.T. Wright's on this issue then it is because Wright is surrendering to Scripture here as well (I'm not a student of the man.....and I'm Baptist not Anglican).
But I wouldn't mind you explaining how this is less PSA than is Luther's words:
“On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know. He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders… That is why he shrank, in Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath. On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that his sinful people might not drink it. He drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually… Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment has been taken. Salvation is accomplished.” - N.T. Wright
So you believe that, although you can't find a passage of Scripture proving your theory, because Calvin and Luthor agreed it's correct.
This is perhaps one reason we can't seem to go forward here. I, along with a few others here, hold Scripture - not tradition - in authority. That's why we've been asking that you provide a verse stating what you claim to be true. But you hold to tradition as if it were Scripture and the belief that this was what Calvin and Luther believed is good enough for you. You simply don't hold this sola.
I would not want anyone to be misinformed, so I sense it a bit necessary to generally clarify a bit about the Wrath of God.
There is a huge need for great prominence to be given to the Wrath of God. Great emphasis has in the past been placed by the great theologians and evangelists upon this theme, and even the papist use it as a tool manipulation to seize and hold power.
However, there are some aspects that is important to not consider the Wrath as that which humans would display as an attribute. That is the concept that it is as some barely controlled rage, and outburst. That is a reflection of the ungodly human attribute. Such ungodly human attributes use the Godly attributes in perverse and perverted manifestations.
Wrath means God's abhorrence of sin. All that is part of the darkness of this world thrust upon the world by the god of this world (Satan) is in direct opposition to God.
God's response is one of not mere disapproval, but just intolerance. God hates sin, in the aspect of sin representing the opposite of Godliness, therefore God's very character and being demand a rejection (hate manifested) of sin.
Now, do not again, consider the word hate as humans are typically using it. What is Godly hate is that manifested God which is displayed by the lesser and growing to be the opposite of love. Hate (in God's revealed character) may, just as humankind, have a certain degree, level, or tolerance.
If hate and love were not held in such regard, then God would have no ability to "wink" at the wickedness as the Scriptures state, but take swift deadly action immediately to any infraction of His holiness.
So, having dealt with the aspect of Wrath, turn the subject back to the last few posts. Did God pour out His wrath upon His own Son on the cross as some would desire an atonement theory to hold? For such a wrath is coupled with rejection and opposition of the Son.
Does that not become a problem considering then when was God then going to approve of the son? What or who would pay for the sin the Son took upon Himself?
What atonement theory then would bring both redemption from sin, and allow the Son not to be forever estranged from the Father as intolerable?
There is a huge need for great prominence to be given to the Wrath of God. Great emphasis has in the past been placed by the great theologians and evangelists upon this theme, and even the papist use it as a tool manipulation to seize and hold power.
However, there are some aspects that is important to not consider the Wrath as that which humans would display as an attribute. That is the concept that it is as some barely controlled rage, and outburst. That is a reflection of the ungodly human attribute. Such ungodly human attributes use the Godly attributes in perverse and perverted manifestations.
Wrath means God's abhorrence of sin. All that is part of the darkness of this world thrust upon the world by the god of this world (Satan) is in direct opposition to God.
God's response is one of not mere disapproval, but just intolerance. God hates sin, in the aspect of sin representing the opposite of Godliness, therefore God's very character and being demand a rejection (hate manifested) of sin.
Now, do not again, consider the word hate as humans are typically using it. What is Godly hate is that manifested God which is displayed by the lesser and growing to be the opposite of love. Hate (in God's revealed character) may, just as humankind, have a certain degree, level, or tolerance.
If hate and love were not held in such regard, then God would have no ability to "wink" at the wickedness as the Scriptures state, but take swift deadly action immediately to any infraction of His holiness.
So, having dealt with the aspect of Wrath, turn the subject back to the last few posts. Did God pour out His wrath upon His own Son on the cross as some would desire an atonement theory to hold? For such a wrath is coupled with rejection and opposition of the Son.
Does that not become a problem considering then when was God then going to approve of the son? What or who would pay for the sin the Son took upon Himself?
What atonement theory then would bring both redemption from sin, and allow the Son not to be forever estranged from the Father as intolerable?
Read the multiple quotes made by Luthor regarding the substutuinary death of Christ!
Jesus bore the brunt of the wrath of God towards sin, in our stead, and when doing such, was forsaken by the father and was treated as if was experiencing hell!
Isaiah 53 is the clearest explanation of the Pst in the OT, and Paul in Romans explains it even more fully!
Ok, then answer the last question of that post.
Using your own thinking, Christ taking upon himself the sins of the world, obligating God to pour out His wrath upon His own Son, condemning His own Son, "What atonement theory then would bring both redemption from sin, and allow the Son not to be forever estranged from the Father as intolerable?"
In your thinking, there is no redemption for the Son, God's wrath abides on Him.
The Son cannot redeem Himself.
That would not be consistent with the pattern of the atonement shown in the OT.
While upon the Cross, God condemned His Son for the sake of those whom Jesus died in stead/place of, but when he stated that it was finished, He no longer bore that wrath upon Him, as was paid in full for us, praise God!
Romans 1:16-17
Then if "God condemned His Son" who redeemed the Son?
Sin is not disposed of as garbage, but carries a debt (according to your view), so who paid the debt the Son now owed the Father that the Son took for us?
Yes, the just shall live by faith.
Not certain how you apply it to your view of wrath and atonement.
Jesus did NOT owe anything to the father, but became our sin offering, and as such, God saw Him as us dieing for our sins.
The Cross shows to us on one hand the absolute holiness of God in His law , as the Lord Jesus paid for all sin dent owed to God, and on other hand, shows us the Love and Grace of God!