No Deal with the Devil: Christ's Ransom and the Justice of God

[Arial]

“Once bitten, twice shy.”

I have been accused of heresy and banned from sites for claiming that I cannot locate a verse that supports the transfer of wrath (ever), so I am a bit gun shy and defensive on the topic.

You intended to present “your POV” and I saw “another correction of my bad/wrong POV”.
Sorry.

Perception. It usually rules the day whether the perception fits the facts or not.

I have had the same experience you mention for being Reformed. Opponents to the theology can be brutal.

 

[atpollard]

Except he didn't sin. Why did he suffer the penalty for something of which he was not guilty?

That is the job description of the High Priest offering Himself (Hebrews 2-9) as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) … [note there is no mention of transferred wrath in the job description].

 

[atpollard]

How is he the substitute without imputation? How did he stand in our place if our sin and guilt was not imputed to him?

Where is the SCRIPTURE where God tells us of this transfer of wrath? How am I to know it is “of God” and not a man made doctrine (like the perpetual virginity and be blessed assumption of Mary)?

Logic is good, but Scripture is better.

 

[Arial]

That is the job description of the High Priest offering Himself (Hebrews 2-9) as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) … [note there is no mention of transferred wrath in the job description].

No there isn't but there was substitutionary penalty. The innocent animal died in the place of the sinner. Jesus was both the sacrifice and the High Priest. The OT high priest did not offer himself (and no, I don't think that is what you are saying but if it was a metaphor at least in the way you worded it, it would be a mixed metaphor.) The high priest was the mediator of the covenant---just as Jesus is of the New.

 

[atpollard]

Not where the innocent chooses to do so.
Nothing forbids me to pay my nephew's fine up at the Courthouse.

Romans 5:6-11 [NLT]
6 When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. 7 Now, most people would not be willing to die for an upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who is especially good. 8 But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. 9 And since we have been made right in God's sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God's condemnation. 10 For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son. 11 So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.

Note that Christ willingly chose to DIE for us, and in doing so made us RIGHT WITH GOD. It was Jesus’ DEATH that restored our friendship with God.

What it does not mention is God’s anger or punishment for us transferred to Jesus.
What it does not mention is the wrath of the Father (or anyone in these verses) poured on the Son.
What it does not mention is some DIVINE SCALE OF JUSTICE that demands balancing (for God’s essence).
There is a gift of LOVE, death, by the Christ to restore the guilty to the Father.

 

[makesends]

False dichotomy. You could have neither lied nor spoken the truth—that is, spoken falsehood in error. That makes you mistaken, not a liar.

Sorry. Couldn't keep silent on this. A certain mentality seems to think it has to be one or the other, and never understands that mistake is neither. There is also misspeak, not to mention misunderstand what was spoken. I lived with someone of that mentality for 40 years, and if I have my way, it will never happen again.

 

[John Bauer]

That is the job description of the High Priest offering himself (Hebrews 2-9) as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

You will need to be more specific. It is not immediately obvious how eight contiguous chapters of Hebrews answers my question.

Jesus did not sin, so why did he suffer the penalty for something of which he was not guilty? Penal substitutionary atonement can answer that question.

Does Christus Victor answer that question? If so, how? If not, what does?

How is he the substitute without imputation? How did he stand in our place if our sin and guilt was not imputed to him?

Where is the SCRIPTURE where God tells us of this transfer of wrath? How am I to know it is “of God” and not a man-made doctrine (like the perpetual virginity and be blessed assumption of Mary)?

Logic is good, but scripture is better.

How does that answer my question?

"It doesn't."

Exactly.

 

[atpollard]

John,
If you really want me to engage directly with you in a discussion of your area of expertise, then at least allow me to choose the question to discuss. I have no interest in suffering an inquisition on my views of every aspect of the Atonement when I question one small aspect of the popular PSA theory.

You stated:

Finally, Scripture says it was to God that Jesus paid the price, for it was his holy justice that demanded a ransom. [8]

In support, you offered:

[8] Ephesians 5:2; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Romans 3:25-26; Isaiah 53:4, 6, 10; 1 Peter 2:22-24; Hebrews 2:10.

• Ephesians 5:2 [ESV] And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
• 1 John 2:2 [ESV] He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
• 1 John 4:10 [ESV] In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
• Romans 3:25-26 [ESV] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
• Isaiah 53:4, 6, 10 [ESV] 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. ... 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. ... 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
• 1 Peter 2:22-24 [ESV] He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 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.
• Hebrews 2:10 [ESV] For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

What I observe in these verses is nothing close to a statement that “his holy Justice demanded a ransom”.
So, why have we reached into eisegetical definitions of “propitiation” to construct a doctrine rather than using the words that God provided in Scripture?

The transfer of wrath comes from a need of “Justice” and a meaning of “propitiation” not explicit in Scripture.
Yet I am the villain for pointing to the word of God and daring to ask such a question (that all need to challenge and correct me, rather than offer scripture to support their doctrinal assumptions)

 

[atpollard]

How does that answer my question?

"It doesn't."

Exactly.

Was I obligated to answer ALL of your questions to YOUR complete satisfaction?

 

[John Bauer]

If you really want me to engage directly with you in a discussion of your area of expertise, then at least allow me to choose the question to discuss.

But these are my questions. Why should you be the one to decide what I get to wonder about?

I have no interest in suffering an inquisition on my views of every aspect of the atonement when I question one small aspect of the popular PSA theory.

I was not engaging in an "inquisition" about "every aspect of the atonement." I saw two incongruencies in your view and asked for clarification.

But if you do not want to answer my questions, so be it. I am content to leave them sitting there unanswered—which is practically itself an answer.

Was I obligated to answer ALL of your questions to YOUR complete satisfaction?

It would’ve been nice if it had answered my question at all, even if not to my satisfaction. (This is in reference to my question, “How is [Christ] the substitute without imputation? How did he stand in our place if our sin and guilt was not imputed to him?”)

 

[Eleanor]

“Once bitten, twice shy.”

I have been accused of heresy and banned from sites for claiming that I cannot locate a verse that supports the transfer of wrath (ever), so I am a bit gun shy and defensive on the topic.

That is found in Mt 27:46, for those who have eyes to see.

Start with 1 Jn 2:2, then there is Jn 1:29, Ro 5:8-9.

Jesus bore God's wrath of which we were the object (Eph 2:3).
It is the Holy Sprit who gives to see and believe these Biblical truths (Jn 3:5). THere is no seeing them apart from that light.