Where did the Wrath of God go? Part 2

[JonC]

'And so then, Jesus took flesh that He might destroy the curse of sinful flesh, and He became for us a curse that a blessing might overwhelm a curse, uprightness might overwhelm sin, forgiveness might overwhelm the sentence, and life might overwhelm death. He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgement, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Therefore nothing was done contrary to God's sentence when the terms of the sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death.' [Ambrose of Milan (339-397), Flight from the World]

Ambrose's whole argument hinges on Penal Substitution, for the curse that rested on sinful mankind was transferred to Christ, and He died to satisfy God's just sentence of death upon us.

Plenty more where that came from.

I have to mention that you left this out:

"The price of our freedom was the blood of our Lord Jesus, and it had to be paid necessarily to the one to whom we had been sold by our sins.
Until, therefore, this price should have been paid for all men which by the shedding of the Lord’s Blood had to be so paid for the absolution of all, the blood of every man, who, by the Law and solemn custom were to follow the precepts of holy religion, was required. But, since one Lord Christ suffered, seeing that the ransom is now paid for all, there is now no longer any need that the blood of every man one by one should be shed by circumcision, for in the Blood of Christ the circumcision of all has been solemnized, and in His Cross we are all crucified together with Him, and buried in His sepulchre, and planted together in the likeness of His death, that henceforth we should not serve sin: for he that is dead, is free from sin."

"Thus if ye, considering Jesus Christ, serve even austere masters with patience, ye will have your reward. For the Lord Himself suffered, the just from the unjust, and with admirable patience nailed our sins to His Cross, that he who shall imitate Him may wash away his sins in His blood."


If this is Penal Substitution.....you obviously do not understand Penal Substitution.

 

[AustinC]

But this is where you are wrong. I do not advocate liberalism (quite the opposite).

I am a biblicist. As such, I interpret Scripture literally. This includes acknowledging figures of speech and literary devices (of course...just heading off the typical liberal attack on my position I think you might head).

This is why we disagree - not because I take a liberal approach to Scripture but because my approach is much more conservative than yours.

This is probably the reason it was not difficult for me to change my view of Penal Substitution Theory. I had assumed it correct but had not taken the time to see if it was actually in God's Word.

Once I took the time one of two options, by necessity, had to occur. I either had to accept a more liberal view of Scripture or I had to adopt a more biblical (according to the text of Scripture) view of the Atonement. I chose the latter and moved away from Penal Substitution Theory.

The problem with the liberal view you hold of Scripture is ultimately every doctrine you hold, regardless of its validity, is subjective because you have no objective standard by which to judge doctrine.

Anybody can say the Bible "teaches" such and such "when properly understood". Holiness Pentecostals say Scripture, when properly understood, teaches those born again will speak in tongues as a sign of their rebirth.

You say Scripture, when properly understood, teaches that Christ suffered God's wrath as our substitute.

I say Scripture teaches that Christ died via the wicked but by God's will, bore our sins bodily, and trusted in God as a righteous judge.

Of the three views above, only my view can actually pass the test of Scripture because it is in God's Word.

Your position is just as legitimate as the Holiness Pentecostal view because it is subjective - it is not dependent on God's Word but on what you believe God's Word "teaches".

Again, you are wrong.
You claim to be a biblicist, but you are only to a point. How can I say this? Because, I take the scripture literally, observing scripture and recognizing the literary devices used by the authors God used to speak to us. But, you have already boasted of your education and the extra-biblical reading you have done, which influences your thoughts. There is no doubt this extra biblical influence thus taints your interpretation of scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

His argument does not hinge on Penal Substitution Theory. You are appropriating his words for your Theory (just so you appropriate Scripture for your Theory).

None so blind as those who won't see. The quotation was not put up for your benefit, but for others, and they can make their own minds up.

 

[JonC]

Again, you are wrong.
You claim to be a biblicist, but you are only to a point. How can I say this? Because, I take the scripture literally, observing scripture and recognizing the literary devices used by the authors God used to speak to us. But, you have already boasted of your education and the extra-biblical reading you have done, which influences your thoughts. There is no doubt this extra biblical influence thus taints your interpretation of scripture.

If you take the Bible literally then why do you claim the Bible says Christ suffered God's wrath, Christ's death appeased God, Christ died instead of us, and Christ is our substitute as none of those ideas are in the text of Scripture?

No, you do not take the Bible literally. You rely on what you believe the Bible teaches and you change (at least in your mind) what is written. You change Christ died for us to Christ died instead of us. That is a liberal interpretation. But then you add to Scripture what is not in the text.

Yes, I have read Christian history and authors. But at the time I also believed as you. I knew historically Christians did not hold Penal Substitution Theory, but I thought they were simply incorrect and perhaps ignorant to some extent.

Now I realize they were right. Christians had disagreements, but they were correct in their over arching view of the cross all of those centuries before John Calvin was even thought of.

 

[JonC]

None so blind as those who won't see. The quotation was not put up for your benefit, but for others, and they can make their own minds up.

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. Thomas Hardy

You condemn me because I believe God's Word as written (without what you believe it "teaches").

That is fine. God's Word is enough for me.

 

[JonC]

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."—2 Corinthians

This verse right here alone shows Christ is our substitute. Saying Christ was made to be sin for us...those very words mean He is our substitute. I am saying that 1+3=4 and Jonc us saying no it isn't unless it says 1+1+1+=4 then it doesn't mean it = 4. Its absurd.

Isaiah 53:1�6

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.


Who was He smitten by God for? Who was He stricken for? Not simply to get the victory but He suffered those things for us. That in and of itself shows Christ is our substitute, What kind of idiotic thinking says otherwise,? it makes no sense,.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.

Again, crushed for our iniquities, it ws our sin He suffered for. We didn't have to suffer for our sin Jesus did that for us. That right there is Christ our substitute.


6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

God laid the sin of all of us on Jesus. Man, you have to bend your brain inside out to ignore that substitution factor right there, I expect that kind of thing from lost people but it is astounding when those who are believers instantly reject this clear doctrine of scripture. What is wrong with people. Not sure why this needs explaining. Good grief.

You are not entirely truthful here. I never denied that God laid our sins on Christ. He bore our sins bodily.

I agree with the passages as they are.

I do not understand why you feel the need to add to God's Word. Why cling to John Calvin when we have God's Word?

Do you really think so little of Scripture?

 

[agedman]

Throughout these discussions, I have waited patiently for someone to post one verse stating plainly that God poured wrath out upon the Son.

@Iconoclast, @Martin Marprelate, @AustinC, and others have not produced that single verse, rather what they have posted of Scripture has more definitely supported what I have posted concerning satisfaction rather than substitution.

Now, I need to remark to @Martin Marprelate concerning "stead" and "instead." They are NOT the same meaning.

Stead means to take the place. It is a noun.

Instead is an adverb.

Christ was sacrificed instead of a bull, goat, lamb dove ...

Rather than me having to bring a sacrifice, Christ stood in my stead.

Christ - stead. Not instead.

Here is a quote of 2 Corinthians 5:20 to illustrate:

The KJV:

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
​

The ESV:

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
​

Certainly, the modern folks have squished in stead into a single word. However, the Scriptures (esp. KJV) must not be read without careful attention to the separation of the words instead and stead.

When it comes to the discussion of substitution versus satisfaction, this point is even more important.

Christ was not our substitute, but stood in place of the animal sacrifices. He was the satisfactory sacrifice, not us.

He, as those animals, bore by blood and death the place of the sacrifice.

He alone served as the High Priest were we had none (speaking as a gentile). He was the High Priest bearing the blood to that worship center not made with hands, and as that stead offered His own blood that we who had not high priest may now through the veil of His body enter the presence of the Father.

By him being the stead, not the instead. (instead sounds almost like an after thought in that sentence.

 

[AustinC]

Throughout these discussions, I have waited patiently for someone to post one verse stating plainly that God poured wrath out upon the Son.

@Iconoclast, @Martin Marprelate, @AustinC, and others have not produced that single verse, rather what they have posted of Scripture has more definitely supported what I have posted concerning satisfaction rather than substitution.

Now, I need to remark to @Martin Marprelate concerning "stead" and "instead." They are NOT the same meaning.

Stead means to take the place. It is a noun.

Instead is an adverb.

Christ was sacrificed instead of a bull, goat, lamb dove ...

Rather than me having to bring a sacrifice, Christ stood in my stead.

Christ - stead. Not instead.

Here is a quote of 2 Corinthians 5:20 to illustrate:

The KJV:

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
​

The ESV:

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
​

Certainly, the modern folks have squished in stead into a single word. However, the Scriptures (esp. KJV) must not be read without careful attention to the separation of the words instead and stead.

When it comes to the discussion of substitution versus satisfaction, this point is even more important.

Christ was not our substitute, but stood in place of the animal sacrifices. He was the satisfactory sacrifice, not us.

He, as those animals, bore by blood and death the place of the sacrifice.

He alone served as the High Priest were we had none (speaking as a gentile). He was the High Priest bearing the blood to that worship center not made with hands, and as that stead offered His own blood that we who had not high priest may now through the veil of His body enter the presence of the Father.

By him being the stead, not the instead. (instead sounds almost like an after thought in that sentence.

Frankly, I don't care about that specific point of God's wrath. I am simply stating that Jesus atonement substituted our sin for his righteousness. Whether God's wrath fell on Jesus isn't my concern. God's wrath is against my sin and it was removed from me by Christ Jesus who took my sin and replaced it with His righteousness. Jesus now forever intercedes for me as my High Priest, having sacrificed once and for all for me.

 

[agedman]

Frankly, I don't care about that specific point of God's wrath. I am simply stating that Jesus atonement substituted our sin for his righteousness. Whether God's wrath fell on Jesus isn't my concern. God's wrath is against my sin and it was removed from me by Christ Jesus who took my sin and replaced it with His righteousness. Jesus now forever intercedes for me as my High Priest, having sacrificed once and for all for me.

Do you actually have a Scripture that supports, "Jesus atonement substituted our sin for his righteousness."

For example:
In Romans 6:

We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
​

But this is not substitution, but inclusion.

In 1 Peter 2:

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
​

And, again, this is not substitution for it only provides the capacity to "die to sin" not eradicate the sin. It provides for the satisfaction of the sin that we might "live to righteousness." The wounds brought healing. Some consider the healing to be the breach between God and Man, others consider that it is the peace that passes understanding, others get into some health care issues, ...

The same thinking is that of Ephesians 5:

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.​

A matter of satisfaction to God for our benefit that we might be "imitators of God, and walk in love," not as the world would but as Christ lives in us.

The word "for" (hyper or hooper) is not substitution, rather it is used as one might use "stead" which carries the thinking of the action done "on our behalf or for our benefit."

It can be used as "in our place" however, that isn't what Christ did. He took the place of the animal sacrifices. This would be using hyper - hooper with the definition of place. Again, satisfaction and not substitution.


In Galatians 2:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for (on behalf of) me. (in my stead - for my benefit, place)
​

Again, this is not substitution, but inclusion. The life in Christ is that of giving for the benefit of others just as He gave Himself for my benefit, on my behalf.
He lives in believers, is not substitution, for we remain sinful and remain in the flesh; rather, it is the empowering that "we may be more than conquerors who loved us and gave himself for us."

One last consideration.
In Titus 2 it is written:

(Jesus Christ) who gave himself for ( benefit, as our stead) us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for ( the word "for" is not in Greek) himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.​

Again, this word "for" is not substitution, rather it is "stead" which carries the thinking of the action done "on our behalf or for our benefit" as already stated above.

So, what I need is you to find a verse that clearly shows substitution in the NT concerning the work of Christ at the crucifixion.

 

[AustinC]

Do you actually have a Scripture that supports, "Jesus atonement substituted our sin for his righteousness."

For example:
In Romans 6:

We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
​

But this is not substitution, but inclusion.

In 1 Peter 2:

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
​

And, again, this is not substitution for it only provides the capacity to "die to sin" not eradicate the sin. It provides for the satisfaction of the sin that we might "live to righteousness." The wounds brought healing. Some consider the healing to be the breach between God and Man, others consider that it is the peace that passes understanding, others get into some health care issues, ...

The same thinking is that of Ephesians 5:

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.​

A matter of satisfaction to God for our benefit that we might be "imitators of God, and walk in love," not as the world would but as Christ lives in us.

The word "for" (hyper or hooper) is not substitution, rather it is used as one might use "stead" which carries the thinking of the action done "on our behalf or for our benefit."

It can be used as "in our place" however, that isn't what Christ did. He took the place of the animal sacrifices. This would be using hyper - hooper with the definition of place. Again, satisfaction and not substitution.


In Galatians 2:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for (on behalf of) me. (in my stead - for my benefit, place)
​

Again, this is not substitution, but inclusion. The life in Christ is that of giving for the benefit of others just as He gave Himself for my benefit, on my behalf.
He lives in believers, is not substitution, for we remain sinful and remain in the flesh; rather, it is the empowering that "we may be more than conquerors who loved us and gave himself for us."

One last consideration.
In Titus 2 it is written:

(Jesus Christ) who gave himself for ( benefit, as our stead) us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for ( the word "for" is not in Greek) himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.​

Again, this word "for" is not substitution, rather it is "stead" which carries the thinking of the action done "on our behalf or for our benefit" as already stated above.

So, what I need is you to find a verse that clearly shows substitution in the NT concerning the work of Christ at the crucifixion.

Hebrews 9:12-15,25-28
With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever. Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow could cleanse people’s bodies from ceremonial impurity. Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant. And he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the high priest here on earth who enters the Most Holy Place year after year with the blood of an animal. If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice. And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him.
Hebrews 10:4-10,12-14
For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings. But you have given me a body to offer. You were not pleased with burnt offerings or other offerings for sin. Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God— as is written about me in the Scriptures.’” First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses). Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time. But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand. There he waits until his enemies are humbled and made a footstool under his feet. For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.

The entire idea of a substitute was instituted in the garden when God killed animals to cover Adam and Eve. It is continued in the Old Covenant established in Exodus and it culminates with that foreshadowing in the New Covenant established by Jesus substitutionary sacrifice.

@agedman, you seem to be looking for a way to find salvation outside of Jesus substituting his righteousness for your sin. I don't understand why you would want something not taught in the Bible.

 

[agedman]

Frankly, I don't care about that specific point of God's wrath. I am simply stating that Jesus atonement substituted our sin for his righteousness. Whether God's wrath fell on Jesus isn't my concern. God's wrath is against my sin and it was removed from me by Christ Jesus who took my sin and replaced it with His righteousness. Jesus now forever intercedes for me as my High Priest, having sacrificed once and for all for me.

Your presentation is well thought out, and not to be diminished, but I would like for you to consider a couple slight modifications that will serve to bridge our understandings, for we are so very near.

The atonement of our Lord was not a matter of exchange but of adoption. We are "joint heirs" with Christ. Paul said, we are ambassadors and we bring a message of reconciliation.

Here is were we differ a little bit more. You present that "God's wrath is against my sin and it was removed from me by Christ Jesus who took my sin and replace it with His righteousness."

Now this does sound so good, yet does not Paul state that believers are "Crucified with Christ..." how then is sin's wrath removed from believers?

I mentioned on another thread that I am a close Calvinist and as such I hold to a predestination view, and that names are already recorded in the book of life, and so forth...

Now here is the philosophy problem with the alignment of wrath and sin. I post without Scripture references for, to you, they are well known.

Believers, the Scriptures indicate, are not appointed to the day(s) of wrath. That wrath are for the ungodly.

The Scriptures also state that all humankind are by nature (fleshly) children of wrath. We live in that nature fulfilling that nature until redeemed.

Where did that wrath go? Nowhere.

Because we are predestined to eternal life, names already written in the book of life, there is no wrath appointed to us. We, prior to redemption, fulfilled the nature as one who is appointed to wrath, but we, by virtue of names being written down, never suffer the wrath, because we are of the redeemed. As one old time believer said: "Have been, am, and will be saved."

So, the question I suppose you need to consider is if there is no wrath for us, then what need was there for God to pour out wrath upon the Son?

For in our view of the limit on atonement - that is that the death and resurrection only benefit believers by granting eternal life - then Christ's death on the cross could not have wrath, nor the sin for which His blood shed.

For does not the Scripture state, there is no forgiveness without "the shedding of blood?"

Shedding blood doesn't bring wrath, it brings forgiveness, doesn't it?

 

[agedman]

Hebrews 9:12-15,25-28
With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever. Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow could cleanse people’s bodies from ceremonial impurity. Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant. And he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the high priest here on earth who enters the Most Holy Place year after year with the blood of an animal. If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice. And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him.
Hebrews 10:4-10,12-14
For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings. But you have given me a body to offer. You were not pleased with burnt offerings or other offerings for sin. Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God— as is written about me in the Scriptures.’” First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses). Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time. But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand. There he waits until his enemies are humbled and made a footstool under his feet. For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.

The entire idea of a substitute was instituted in the garden when God killed animals to cover Adam and Eve. It is continued in the Old Covenant established in Exodus and it culminates with that foreshadowing in the New Covenant established by Jesus substitutionary sacrifice.

@agedman, you seem to be looking for a way to find salvation outside of Jesus substituting his righteousness for your sin. I don't understand why you would want something not taught in the Bible.

I understand why you use substitute.

But, what did Adam and Eve substitute? Did they not continue a life of sinfulness?

What did you substitute? Are you sinless?

Christ as shown in the bold portions that I made in your post, did not substitute, but was a satisfactory offering by God for God. That which only He could make to please Himself.

The new covenant is established by the death of the one who makes the last will (covenant) for as long as that person is alive it remains changeable. After death the will is broken open and read (think of the seven sealed scroll in heaven).

How are we made holy? Not because we do not sin, for we all still do sin. But because it was "God's will.. by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ..."

It was by His body that we are healed, have peace, ... The blood - forgiveness of sin. The body - healing (made holy).

 

[AustinC]

Your presentation is well thought out, and not to be diminished, but I would like for you to consider a couple slight modifications that will serve to bridge our understandings, for we are so very near.

The atonement of our Lord was not a matter of exchange but of adoption. We are "joint heirs" with Christ. Paul said, we are ambassadors and we bring a message of reconciliation.

Our adoption was before the foundation of the world. This is because the New Covenant was established at the cross and in that covenant, our names were written into the will. When Jesus died, the will was enacted and our names were found in the will, making us children of God with Christ Jesus being the firstborn whose inheritance is first and foremost.

We are found, in Christ. Which means that when Jesus became our substitute, God the Father see's our position as righteous because we are crucified with Christ and no longer live.

Here is were we differ a little bit more. You present that "God's wrath is against my sin and it was removed from me by Christ Jesus who took my sin and replace it with His righteousness."

Now this does sound so good, yet does not Paul state that believers are "Crucified with Christ..." how then is sin's wrath removed from believers?

Our deserved wrath is received upon the Lamb of God in his crucifixion. The debt of our sin was paid, once and for all, through Jesus atoning sacrifice. This is the argument of the speaker to the Hebrews as he connects the Old Covenant sacrifices as foreshadowing the New Covenant sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the cross.

I mentioned on another thread that I am a close Calvinist and as such I hold to a predestination view, and that names are already recorded in the book of life, and so forth...

Now here is the philosophy problem with the alignment of wrath and sin. I post without Scripture references for, to you, they are well known.

Believers, the Scriptures indicate, are not appointed to the day(s) of wrath. That wrath are for the ungodly.

The Scriptures also state that all humankind are by nature (fleshly) children of wrath. We live in that nature fulfilling that nature until redeemed.

Where did that wrath go? Nowhere.

The wrath of God was satisfied in Christ. "There is now no longer any condemnation for those who belong to Christ."
Romans 8:26-39 brings this truth home.

Because we are predestined to eternal life, names already written in the book of life, there is no wrath appointed to us. We, prior to redemption, fulfilled the nature as one who is appointed to wrath, but we, by virtue of names being written down, never suffer the wrath, because we are of the redeemed. As one old time believer said: "Have been, am, and will be saved."

We, by nature of being chosen...AND by Jesus atoning sacrifice for our particular sins, have been, am, and will be saved.
Just being written in the book of life is not enough. An atonement for my sins must be made and that atonement is made by God the Son on my behalf as a substitute for my sins.

So, the question I suppose you need to consider is if there is no wrath for us, then what need was there for God to pour out wrath upon the Son?

There absolutely was a need, because until Jesus died as the perfect atoning sacrifice for my sins, God's wrath was upon me. Yes, my position was secure before the foundation of the world, but the atoning work of Christ was still necessary. This is why the speaker to the Hebrews tells us about the faith of those who came before Christ, who by faith looked forward to their Redeemer who would pay the price for them. If, their sins were already paid for, there would have been no need for Christ Jesus to come and die on the cross.

For in our view of the limit on atonement - that is that the death and resurrection only benefit believers by granting eternal life - then Christ's death on the cross could not have wrath, nor the sin for which His blood shed.

For does not the Scripture state, there is no forgiveness without "the shedding of blood?"

Shedding blood doesn't bring wrath, it brings forgiveness, doesn't it?

It brought forgiveness to you and me and the holy atoning sacrifice of Jesus took the just wrath of God away from me while placing it upon the sacrifice of Jesus that not only covered my sin for a period of time, but covered my sin once and for all.
Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10 are of such great assistance here in understanding the connection between the foreshadowing tabernacle and sacrifices of the high priests, with the once for all sacrifice of our High Priest, Jesus Christ.

I hope this helps you understand how I am viewing scripture from God's foreshadowing in the Old Covenant to Jesus fulfillment in the New Covenant.

 

[AustinC]

I understand why you use substitute.

But, what did Adam and Eve substitute? Did they not continue a life of sinfulness?

What did you substitute? Are you sinless?

Christ as shown in the bold portions that I made in your post, did not substitute, but was a satisfactory offering by God for God. That which only He could make to please Himself.

The new covenant is established by the death of the one who makes the last will (covenant) for as long as that person is alive it remains changeable. After death the will is broken open and read (think of the seven sealed scroll in heaven).

How are we made holy? Not because we do not sin, for we all still do sin. But because it was "God's will.. by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ..."

It was by His body that we are healed, have peace, ... The blood - forgiveness of sin. The body - healing (made holy).

The answer to this is that Adam and Eve looked forward to their Redeemer who would remove their sins. I look back upon my Redeemer who removed my sins.

Paul expresses our present struggle on earth between our sin nature in Romans 7 with God's making us right in Romans 8.

From Adam and Eve to the present, we who believe are all justified by faith in our Redeemer. We are made right with God, not because we do not sin, but because Jesus took our sins (past, present, and future) upon himself.

You are correct, we are made holy by the sacrifice of Jesus as our atonement that justifies us by faith.

We have much agreement, but you seem to not see how a substitute was foreshadowed in the tabernacle of God and fulfilled in the tabernacle (dwelling) of Jesus on earth as our sacrifice for our sins.

 

[JonC]

I suspect this is an issue we will never agree upon.

I knew this when Austin, Iconoclast, and Maryin suggested the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the text of Scripture but what we see as taught by Scripture.

That let me know that we have different standards for foundational doctrines, even though they backtracked a bit.

Everyone who reads this post and then turns to Scripture knows Penal Substitution Theory is not in the text of Scripture - even of they believe it is what Scripture teaches.

But that is why I cannot accept the Theory. It may be different of Scripture did not make sence without it, but even then it would be my failure to understand rather than what is written.

 

[agedman]

Our adoption was before the foundation of the world. This is because the New Covenant was established at the cross and in that covenant, our names were written into the will. When Jesus died, the will was enacted and our names were found in the will, making us children of God with Christ Jesus being the firstborn whose inheritance is first and foremost.

We are found, in Christ. Which means that when Jesus became our substitute, God the Father see's our position as righteous because we are crucified with Christ and no longer live.

I can agree with the first paragraph.

The second you see Christ as a substitute, were I see no substitution necessary, but the imputing of righteousness to us by the work of the crucifixion.

Btw, I am also not greatly enamored by the term "impute" for it has a rather negative connotation that one is wrongly accused or wrongly punished.

Yet, it does fit going the other direction as one who is pardoned of a judgement. There was not the substitution, the judge, jury, executioner, did not substitute (stand in for ) the sentence, but the governor, the one who signs into law proclaimed pardon. That was what was done by the work of the crucifixion. Again - not substitution, for we are still sinners saved by the unmerited favor of God.

Our deserved wrath is received upon the Lamb of God in his crucifixion. The debt of our sin was paid, once and for all, through Jesus atoning sacrifice. This is the argument of the speaker to the Hebrews as he connects the Old Covenant sacrifices as foreshadowing the New Covenant sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the cross.

Yet, there is no Scripture support for this assertion of "our deserved wrath received upon the Lamb of God in his crucifixion," that I can find. I would be glad to see it. But so far, it is not found. It doesn't occur even by inference much less statement in Hebrews.

The wrath of God was satisfied in Christ. "There is now no longer any condemnation for those who belong to Christ."
Romans 8:26-39 brings this truth home.

Romans 8:

26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know how we ought to pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans too deep for words. 27And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

28And we know that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. 29For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. 31What then shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also, along with Him, freely give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34Who is there to condemn us? For Christ Jesus, who died, and more than that was raised to life, is at the right hand of God—and He is interceding for us.​

I carefully read these words when a child and rejoiced at the planning of my Father.
However, there is not the hint of "The wrath of God was satisfied in Christ" in this passage. Again, not even an inference much less actual statement.

We, by nature of being chosen...AND by Jesus atoning sacrifice for our particular sins, have been, am, and will be saved.
Just being written in the book of life is not enough. An atonement for my sins must be made and that atonement is made by God the Son on my behalf as a substitute for my sins.

"Just being written in the book of life is not enough." is a very alarming statement!

Whoever does not have their name written in the book of life is cast into the Lake of Fire according to Revelation 20.

Atonement for sins certainly. There is no disagreement. But was the yearly atonement sacrifice ever considered a substitutionary sacrifice in the OT?

Here is the difficulty with the substitute thinking. If one is a substitute, they replace the archetype with a temporary or forgery. This is seen by your Hebrews quote earlier. Christ is the archetype and all the others were temporary (forgery) in which were not completely pleasing to God and only temporary assuaging Him. Yet, He showed not wrath.

At the crucifixion, permanent effect was made, not by a substitute, but by the very archetype of which all other sacrifices were copies.

There absolutely was a need, because until Jesus died as the perfect atoning sacrifice for my sins, God's wrath was upon me. Yes, my position was secure before the foundation of the world, but the atoning work of Christ was still necessary. This is why the speaker to the Hebrews tells us about the faith of those who came before Christ, who by faith looked forward to their Redeemer who would pay the price for them. If, their sins were already paid for, there would have been no need for Christ Jesus to come and die on the cross.

Was it? Was God's wrath upon you? Why? If Christ took all wrath at the crucifixion as you hold, why then 2000 years later does God have wrath? Did He forget? I jest. But yet it remains a rather serious presentation. For either the work of the crucifixion is complete, and we may at our appointed time enter His rest (Hebrews 4 or 5) or it was incomplete and waiting upon human timing.

The folks looking forward were not in a place of torment, but the place our Lord told the thief they would meet up, in paradise. They did not wait upon the redeemer, but the resurrection of Christ. He being the first (in authority and order) of the resurrection to appear in heaven. This is seen by John when Christ took the Scroll, and in Hebrews by the blood atonement.

Forgiveness of sin relied upon blood sacrifice. The difference between animal and Christ was His was once forever.

Christ long ago shed blood for all sin as John states

2He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.​

Once for all.
You were redeemed at the appointed time, but the sin sacrifice was made long ago by Christ. The ancients were in the same boat, but at a different oar. At the appointed time they were redeemed, by a temporary shed blood system, yet by type, pointing to the once for all.

It brought forgiveness to you and me and the holy atoning sacrifice of Jesus took the just wrath of God away from me while placing it upon the sacrifice of Jesus that not only covered my sin for a period of time, but covered my sin once and for all.
Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10 are of such great assistance here in understanding the connection between the foreshadowing tabernacle and sacrifices of the high priests, with the once for all sacrifice of our High Priest, Jesus Christ.

I hope this helps you understand how I am viewing scripture from God's foreshadowing in the Old Covenant to Jesus fulfillment in the New Covenant.

I agree, Hebrews is a wealth of meat that very few are willing to even attempt to digest. Most, as Hebrews pauses to say, prefer milk.

Where you assign wrath and apparently an ongoing need that present day folks somehow have their punishment imputed 2000 years ago to Christ, I present no wrath and a one time satisfactory conclusion of the sacrificial atonement in which some of all ages were reconciled to God and eventually enter His rest as saints (using Paul's description of believers).

 

[agedman]

The answer to this is that Adam and Eve looked forward to their Redeemer who would remove their sins. I look back upon my Redeemer who removed my sins.

Paul expresses our present struggle on earth between our sin nature in Romans 7 with God's making us right in Romans 8.

From Adam and Eve to the present, we who believe are all justified by faith in our Redeemer. We are made right with God, not because we do not sin, but because Jesus took our sins (past, present, and future) upon himself.

You are correct, we are made holy by the sacrifice of Jesus as our atonement that justifies us by faith.

We have much agreement, but you seem to not see how a substitute was foreshadowed in the tabernacle of God and fulfilled in the tabernacle (dwelling) of Jesus on earth as our sacrifice for our sins.

This is why I said that we are so near, yet remain with different views.

This view thinking is not wrong in itself, as long as we all agree that all human views are theories that have not completely brought clarity to all accomplished at the crucifixion.

Were you desire to see "substitution" I see "satisfaction." Were you ascribe to "wrath" I find God pleased.

As a man who had a dinosaur as a pet, it will remain a small contention between us, and I will continue to search the SCriptures for some proof of needing to return to your thinking. Would that I could encourage you to look through my view for foundation, also.

For the readers.
One of the words used in Hebrews for the work of Christ is found in 9:28

...so also Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him.​

anapheró is Greek word for the first bear. It means to take upon oneself, to place up on an alter, to lead others up, to pick up a load, or to lift up a load, to carry upwards,.

What it does not mean is to be a substitute - one who stands in for the archetype, for He is the archetype, He is not a substitute.

 

[JonC]

. . . But also Romans 3:25-26 tells us that God set forth Christ as a 'propitiation,' that is, a 'wrath removing sacrifice' (William Hendricksen).

You misunderstand the usage.

Although Christ did not effectively give His ransom for those who reject Him, He certainly gave it sufficiently. It is rather that they did not accept it.

It should not be denied that it was given, but rather it should be denied that the benefit of the propitiation was accepted.

Your theory does not allow for this.

 

[JesusFan]

If you take the Bible literally then why do you claim the Bible says Christ suffered God's wrath, Christ's death appeased God, Christ died instead of us, and Christ is our substitute as none of those ideas are in the text of Scripture?

No, you do not take the Bible literally. You rely on what you believe the Bible teaches and you change (at least in your mind) what is written. You change Christ died for us to Christ died instead of us. That is a liberal interpretation. But then you add to Scripture what is not in the text.

Yes, I have read Christian history and authors. But at the time I also believed as you. I knew historically Christians did not hold Penal Substitution Theory, but I thought they were simply incorrect and perhaps ignorant to some extent.

Now I realize they were right. Christians had disagreements, but they were correct in their over arching view of the cross all of those centuries before John Calvin was even thought of.

The Reformers held to psa, and far more importantly, so did Jesus and his Apostles!

 

[JesusFan]

You misunderstand the usage.

Although Christ did not effectively give His ransom for those who reject Him, He certainly gave it sufficiently. It is rather that they did not accept it.

It should not be denied that it was given, but rather it should be denied that the benefit of the propitiation was accepted.

Your theory does not allow for this.

God did not intend to save all by the Cross of Christ, as was a particular salvation and atonement!