Transferred Wrath

[ReverendRV]

I suppose the Thread is winding down?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Not necessarily.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Fair enough.

But that doesn't change the grammatical, biblical, and theological difference between "is" (present simple) and "has been" (present perfect).

To say that someone "is" condemned doesn't specify when that judgment took effect. Unlike your statement, scripture uses the perfect passive indicative to affirm that the condemnation of unbelievers is a decisive, past judgment that has been settled this whole time (ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται)—the unbeliever "has been condemned already" (and God's wrath remains on him, v. 36). The insertion of ἤδη is not incidental, it is emphatic. It marks the verdict not as future or contingent, but as past and fixed. The unbeliever is already condemned, and that judgment continues to stand.

The verb κέκριται is in the perfect passive indicative, establishing that judgment is

• past (already rendered),
  
  ​
• passive (inflicted by another—namely, God),
  
  ​
• indicative (a real, factual state of affairs).

The order of the Greek, here—ἤδη κέκριται—is deliberate. Placing ἤδη before the verb gives it emphatic force. One might assume that the final judgment comes at death or the eschaton, but Jesus declares it is already in effect. Unbelief is not the precursor to judgment—it is the proof of it. Condemnation is not a warning of what might come but a pronouncement of what has already come.

It’s quite simple

A person in a state of unbelief is condemned. Perfect tense. It is completed nothing need to happen to make them more condemned

On the other hand. A person who is presently believing is not condemned

Logically. If I am perfectly condemned because of lack of faith. And no longer condemned when I am in a state of active faith

Well we see what separates the lost. The dead and the unborn. From the found the non condemned and the born again

Faith

Which is what Jesus told nicodemus in the Ceres following vs 10 until the verse in question

Since that is a quote from Romans 6:23—"the wages of sin is death" (NKJV)—the answer is obviously, "Correct."

?

 

[atpollard]

It is unfortunate that @atpollard is no longer engaging in the debate he requested because, as a family man (with two small children) who works for a living, it takes me a little longer than most to finish writing a post. And this one was interrupted by yet another hospital visit, this time for my youngest with a nasty head injury.

Alas, I will post it anyway for at least the reader's information and edification. If, by the grace and providence of God, atpollard chooses to engage me, I would be very pleased.

This is probably a mistake, but clearly not my first. Let me begin with a general statement ...
[I will be ignoring all other posters. This is more "self defense" than rudeness. I was pulled in too many directions previously and ended up responding to one poster only to have another say "I never said that".]

Your presentation was well articulated, offering both SCRIPTURE upon which to build and theological exegesis of that scripture. Thank you.

Let me ask a question to help me understand definitions before we get into your presentation. "Got Questions" defined Penal Substitution as follows:

What is the doctrine of penal substitution?​

In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.​

​

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).​

​

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.​

​

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41–42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.​

​

During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25–26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.​

​

There are quite a few different theories about how, exactly, Christ’s sacrifice frees us from the penalty of sin. Penal substitution is the most logically and biblically sound view.​

Other than the "open door" to synergism in "those who accept Christ" as the mechanism of salvation (not what we are here to discuss), is there anything in the "Got Questions" definition that you disagree with?

I would REALLY like to know what PSA is before attempting to discuss it. I am weary of one source says "PSA is this", and someone replies "no it is not".

Just to be transparent, I have UNDERLINED the parts that are of particular interest to me.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

This is probably a mistake, but clearly not my first. Let me begin with a general statement ...
[I will be ignoring all other posters. This is more "self defense" than rudeness. I was pulled in too many directions previously and ended up responding to one poster only to have another say "I never said that".]

Your presentation was well articulated, offering both SCRIPTURE upon which to build and theological exegesis of that scripture. Thank you.

Let me ask a question to help me understand definitions before we get into your presentation. "Got Questions" defined Penal Substitution as follows:

What is the doctrine of penal substitution?​

In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.​

​

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).​

​

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.​

​

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41–42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.​

​

During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25–26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.​

​

There are quite a few different theories about how, exactly, Christ’s sacrifice frees us from the penalty of sin. Penal substitution is the most logically and biblically sound view.​

Other than the "open door" to synergism in "those who accept Christ" as the mechanism of salvation (not what we are here to discuss), is there anything in the "Got Questions" definition that you disagree with?

I would REALLY like to know what PSA is before attempting to discuss it. I am weary of one source says "PSA is this", and someone replies "no it is not".

Just to be transparent, I have UNDERLINED the parts that are of particular interest to me.

Redemption states it well. I was redeemed by the blood.

 

[fastfredy0]

The overwhelming majority of instances of anger in the Old Testament speak of God's anger both against his chosen people and against pagan nations. God's anger differs, however, from most examples of human anger. Expressions of God's anger exhibit no loss of control. Rather, as an act of God's will, his anger results in deliberate judgments against sin—actions appropriate to the situation and in keeping with his own character as holy and just.

Excellent point and though the thread is about God's wrath no one made this clarification, leastwise that I noticed. There is potential for people to make arguments based on varying definitions of God's wrath.

 

[makesends]

It’s quite simple

A person in a state of unbelief is condemned. Perfect tense. It is completed nothing need to happen to make them more condemned

On the other hand. A person who is presently believing is not condemned

Logically. If I am perfectly condemned because of lack of faith. And no longer condemned when I am in a state of active faith

Well we see what separates the lost. The dead and the unborn. From the found the non condemned and the born again

Faith

Which is what Jesus told nicodemus in the Ceres following vs 10 until the verse in question

?

You appear on the surface to have re-iterated, though less detailed, what @DialecticSkeptic said. Not sure what your point was except, perhaps, to show that it isn't complicated. You seem to agree with him, but you miss one detail —the WHY DS said what he did. I will point it out like this: What you here admit to, as though what DS said did not disagree with you, is countered by what you indicated in the past —that the unbeliever is capable of producing salvific faith upon mere intellectual/emotional convincing.

This shows in your arrangement of words. "Logically. If I am perfectly condemned because of lack of faith" You seem to quantify faith here. Christ spoke somewhat derisively against lack of faith, but never specifically as though Salvation was involved. It is not a quantity but a quality matter, and that is why I keep telling you that your claim is that the person produces it, even though you deny that is your claim. Salvific faith is generated within the individual elect by the only source of full integrity that there is—God himself—NOT by the will of man.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Excellent point and though the thread is about God's wrath no one made this clarification, leastwise that I noticed. There is potential for people to make arguments based on varying definitions of God's wrath.

I was trying to but the OP seemed to disagree or he couldn't understand me.

I'm not very good at the scholarly grammar. I don't know how to get better at that.

 

[makesends]

Mind if I ask why people
In this chatroom seem to love to think they know what people do and the motive behind their post

All I did was show what I believe nothing more nothing less

MOD HAT: YOUR POST IS OFF TOPIC (Lol, I suppose I could get upset now, as though you think you know why I said what I did.)

Brother, it is because you showed what you believed —IN HOW YOU SAID IT— that I picked it apart, comparing what you said there, with what you have said in the past. I did so, ON TOPIC, without disrespect, defining what you have in the past said you mean by certain words, such as, "faith".

 

[ReverendRV]

This is probably a mistake, but clearly not my first. Let me begin with a general statement ...
[I will be ignoring all other posters. This is more "self defense" than rudeness. I was pulled in too many directions previously and ended up responding to one poster only to have another say "I never said that".]

Your presentation was well articulated, offering both SCRIPTURE upon which to build and theological exegesis of that scripture. Thank you.

Let me ask a question to help me understand definitions before we get into your presentation. "Got Questions" defined Penal Substitution as follows:

What is the doctrine of penal substitution?​

In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.​

​

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).​

​

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.​

​

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41–42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.​

​

During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25–26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.​

​

There are quite a few different theories about how, exactly, Christ’s sacrifice frees us from the penalty of sin. Penal substitution is the most logically and biblically sound view.​

Other than the "open door" to synergism in "those who accept Christ" as the mechanism of salvation (not what we are here to discuss), is there anything in the "Got Questions" definition that you disagree with?

I would REALLY like to know what PSA is before attempting to discuss it. I am weary of one source says "PSA is this", and someone replies "no it is not".

Just to be transparent, I have UNDERLINED the parts that are of particular interest to me.

I get that a Poster can be overwhelmed. It's why I use the analogy of being the Belle of the Ball everyone wants to dance with...

I tried to keep with your OP; a Transferred Wrath. God does Substitute Jesus for Us, as the Object of his Wrath...

 

[ReverendRV]

Excellent point and though the thread is about God's wrath no one made this clarification, leastwise that I noticed. There is potential for people to make arguments based on varying definitions of God's wrath.

The OP made it about a Transferred Wrath...

 

[fastfredy0]

I'm not very good at the scholarly grammar.

I haven't noticed any short comings in your communication skills. Don't sell yourself short.

 

[Eleanor]

I haven't noticed any short comings in your communication skills. Don't sell yourself short.

You're good at what counts. . .

 

[Eleanor]

Greetings Arial,

This isn’t my first rodeo on PSA and the WRATH of God, so you will forgive me if I enter with little expectation of “communication” (talking TO each other) and with more trepidation of talking PAST each other.

First, a disclaimer: I believe everything the Bible EXPLICITLY states that Jesus did and was, so all attempts to quote “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3) and similar verses as a “gotcha” proof the PSA is true and I am wrong will be met with a [sigh] and “Yup, I believe that, too.” That is not my complaint with PSA as it is typically presented.

FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF THIS FORUM:
“Christ took our sins and the sins of the whole world as well as the Father's wrath on his shoulders, and he has drowned them both in himself so that we are thereby reconciled to God and become completely righteous. Martin Luther”

Taking this as a working definition of PSA (we need to start somewhere and Christ Centered Community chose this quote to DEFINE “Atonement” for purposes of discussion), here is the challenge that was presented to me and I was confident that I could succeed in passing:

• Show me where in the BIBLE it teaches “Christ took … the Father's wrath on his shoulders”.

Jesus prayed that the cup (of God's wrath--Isa 51:17, Jer 25:15-17, 49:12, Lam 4:21, Eze 23:31) be taken from him (Mt 26:39), nevertheless, submitting to God's will that it be poured out on him.

He satisfied (propitiated) God's wrath on our sin (Ro 3:25).

So therein is my problem. I searched to prove the definition Luther and CCC provided TRUE according to the challenge provided by another Christian to show where that is taught in Scripture. In my search, I found scripture offered a very different picture of God and the difference between WRATH and FORGIVENESS to the “pound of flesh to balance the scale of Divine Justice” model that I had been taught. Being “SOLA SCRIPTURA” to the core, I chose to reject the teaching of great theologians for the “Norma normans non normata” (the rule of rules that itself, answers to no higher rule”) … I believed Scripture.

The very specific point, succinctly put, is the TRANSFER of WRATH. I cannot find Biblical support for the theological model of God transferring DIVINE wrath from us (“the punishment we deserve” is how I typically heard it stated) to Jesus Christ (“Jesus took God’s punishment in our place” is how I typically heard it stated) so that God’s Justice could be satisfied (“Justice demands that payment be made for the sin to allow Mercy to forgive” … the divine equivalent of God demands his pound of flesh to satisfy his wrath before God is free to show mercy.). I have no objection to this on any grounds that it is “mean” or “unfair”. It is not God’s RIGHT to create such an atonement plan that I object to. I simply think that if God DID create such an atonement plan, that God would probably have mentioned it in His 66 books of God- breathed scripture. The fact that scripture does not teach about transferred wrath (only transferred sin) suggests that WRATH is not transferred. The fact that scripture actually teaches OTHER THINGS about WRATH reinforces that belief.

So to try and speak directly to your specific questions:

Q. Does it have to be wrath poured out of Christ in order to be penal substitution?

• No. However it is the concept of TRANSFERRED WRATH that I disagree with, so it is the “God’s wrath, directed at the saints, transferred to and inflicted on Christ, by God” that I call into question. If you can reject that and still call it PSA, then you have my agreement.

Q. And wouldn't the statement "wrath poured on the Son" first need to be explained by the one who is using that terminology?

• Yes. Unfortunately, everyone will have a different definition. Here at CCC, we have a quote from Luther as a starting point. For me, I have now defined my objection. For TRUTH, we have SCRIPTURE to define what God claims God did.

 

[Carbon]

Jesus prayed that the cup of God's wrath (Isa 51:17, Jer 25:15-17, 49:12, Lam 4:21, Eze 23:31) be taken from him (Mt 26:39), nevertheless, submitting to God's will.

Amen!

 

[Eleanor]

Show me where in the BIBLE it teaches “Christ took … the Father's wrath on his shoulders”.

There is also

1 Pe 2:24 - He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.

Gal 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

Ro 8:32 - God did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us.

 

[Carbon]

There is also

1 Pe 2:24 - He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.

Gal 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

Ro 8:32 - God did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us.

It's quite obvious.

 

[ReverendRV]

Ro 8:32 - God did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for usus.

That's really it...

In a way, it's foolish to continue the debate after that...

My question is; why is any Christian really against PSA?


What's matter it to them? I bet it's a Doctrine, not a Verse...

 

[Eleanor]

That's really it...

In a way, it's foolish to continue the debate after that...
My question is; why is any Christian really against PSA?
What's matter it to them? I bet it's a Doctrine, not a Verse...

They don't have a good grasp of God's justice. . .because they find it offensive of God.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It's quite simple. A person in a state of unbelief is condemned. Perfect tense.

I can see what you're trying to say and I appreciate your desire to be precise. Having said that, it is worth clarifying that the phrase "is condemned" is actually in the present tense, not the perfect.

The perfect tense is captured by the clause "has been condemned," a phrasing that indicates a completed action with ongoing results. This is a meaningful distinction, especially in biblical texts where tense carries theological weight—like John 3:18 (cf. v. 36).

It may also be worth pointing out that this isn't a disagreement about interpretation, necessarily, but a matter of grammar. And I say that only because the accuracy of the text really matters to our understanding it.

It is completed. Nothing need to happen to make them more condemned.

You are exactly right.

On the other hand, a person who is presently believing is not condemned.

That is a thoughtful point but I think it misses something important.

I understand what you're getting at: The present tense ("is believing") definitely indicates someone who appears, right now, to be trusting in Christ. But appearances can be deceiving, right? In texts like John 3:18, that participle (ὁ πιστεύων, "the believing ones") tends to function in a broader, more defining sense, describing not just a present act but a particular kind of person: someone whose life is defined by real, enduring faith.

I'm sure we both know people who seem to believe for a time but later fall away. So, it's possible that someone might believe presently and yet still be under condemnation—because that faith isn't lasting (as time will tell). That's why I think John is speaking more about the kind of believing that flows from the Spirit and perseveres, and not just any instance of presently believing.

Therefore, I would say both the grammar and the theology together point us to a deeper kind of believing than what may appear on the surface. That is part of what makes these texts both challenging and beautiful.