Transferred Wrath

[Arial]

You described the Passover. And He is our Passover and we are covered/protected by His blood in the Atonement He made for our sins.

And?

 

[atpollard]

My Gospel Tract was about a Transferred Wrath...

Judgment Days ~ by ReverendRV * June 15

Romans 2:5 ESV; But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

If I may just make a quick observation (I promise to read everything you have made the effort to provide). I am seeking proof of the concept of "transferred wrath" as the opposite of "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." - Ezekiel 18:20 [ESV]. Romans 2:5 actually supports Ezekiel 18:20 rather than the transfer of wrath since those storing up wrath "for yourself" are NOT THE FORGIVEN, but those that persist in rebellion ... the "wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself".

Theology sometimes presents us with a System to explain difficulties in the Bible. I often say that if you cannot find an answer for a possible mistake in the Bible, and no one is able to give you the answer; it doesn’t mean there’s nobody out there who can give an answer. There is a Principle in Theology known as ‘Dual Fulfilment’. Isaiah 7:14 is a dual fulfillment; a Promised son was born in the Old Testament; and in the New Testament. Jesus read from the Book of Isaiah; but stopped at a certain point, saying that in this day the reading was fulfilled in their hearing. The Reason Jesus stopped was because the next Verse he could have read, will be fulfilled on Judgment Day.

I agree. There are many other verses that speak of "a Judgement Day" as a future event ... even in the NT from Jesus lips.

~ Another Verse also has a Double fulfillment; ‘The Sun will darken and the Moon turn blood red, before the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord comes’. In Ellicott’s Commentary, He says the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord is the Day Jesus Christ died. Saint Peter teaches us it was Christ’s Judgment Day. Saint Paul teaches this Judgment Day is coming again…

OK, so THIS is where your reference to Acts 2 fits in, as proof that Peter claimed Judgement Day had come.

Act 2:14-21 [ESV]

14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ​

​

17 "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, ​

that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, ​

and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, ​

and your young men shall see visions, ​

and your old men shall dream dreams; ​

​

18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'​

Joel seems to predict the coming of the Holy Spirit in the Last Days (Acts 2:16-18) ... which seems to have NOTHING to do with WRATH (transferred or not).

For Ellicott's commentary, OK, I will accept that Acts 2:20 may be a reference to the day Jesus died and the sky became dark [symbolism is not my strong suit]. However, YOU stated that "Saint Peter teaches us it was Christ’s Judgment Day." I do no see that taught in Peter's words in Acts 2. However, I do see yet another promise of FORGIVENESS with no mention of a transfer of Wrath ... Acts 2:21 states "And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Why is there a Judgment Day? It is due to the Sin of the World. ~ What do you call people who Lie? Have you ever Lied? Then you belong in their Category. Do you not believe in God? Now you broke the First Commandment to believe in God. Have you ever thought of God as anything other than what the Bible says he is? Then you broke the Second Commandment not to make a god to suit yourself. Have you ever Hated someone? Jesus said this means you’ve Murdered them in your Heart. He also said, ‘Unbelievers, Murderers, Idolaters, and all Liars deserve to go to Hell’. Will you be innocent or guilty? Would you go to Heaven or Hell? ~ What you need is an Alternative Judgment Day where God’s Wrath can be revealed…

I agree. The issue is WORLD. Judgement in scripture falls on the GUILTY. As noted above, Ezekiel 18 says GUILT is not transferred. However, Ezekiel 18 and Acts 2:21 do speak of guilt being forgiven. I accept the FORGIVENESS of Sin (thus negating the need for WRATH), I do not see the evidence of the transfer of WRATH. The above is first and foremost a 'logical argument' supporting a theological position. As such, it makes the theology coherent (all the parts fit together). However, only SCRIPTURE can make the theory TRUTH.

For God so Loved the world he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting Life! Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, that he could be Sinless. He lived a life of maintaining his Sinlessness, and this is why God his Father was well pleased with him.

100% agree to this point.

He earned his way to Heaven by being Good,

Umm ... does Scripture actually say this? Jesus was GOD, so "earning" heaven is almost a silly concept. Does God deserve to be God?

but volunteered to pay the Penalty for the Sins of every new Believer;

I object. "Pay the penalty" is begging the question. I am asking for scripture that actually STATES that Jesus PAID THE PENALTY for every believer.

by being a Substitute for them,

"Begging the question": Supporting verse please?
First you must show that God required the penalty be paid.
Then you must show that Jesus was the substitute that paid that penalty.

on a Substitute Day of Judgment and Wrath.

"Stating facts not in evidence": Who says Jesus death on the cross was a "substitute Day of Wrath" and there is not just ONE "Day of wrath" when the stored up WRATH of God is poured out on the guilty (those who reject so great a salvation)?

Jesus Christ died on the Cross by bleeding to death, was buried; but arose from the Grave Alive! He was seen by five Hundred people before he Ascended to Heaven. We’re Saved by the Grace of God through Faith in the Risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, without Works lest we boast. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your lord God; and learn from him at a Gospel Church.

No disagreement on this.

~ Are you not convinced that the Day of Christ’s Crucifixion is the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord’s Judgment? How could that Day be Great at all?? As Christians we celebrate the day every year; after all, why in the world do we call that Terrible day, ‘Good Friday’?

Honestly, no, I am not convinced. My issue is that "reason" can too easily lead me astray, so I want TRUTH. TRUTH is only found in the WORD of God (both the person and His book).

 

[atpollard]

Isaiah 53:5 ESV; 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.

Discusses what Jesus accomplished:

• "for" (because of):
  • transgressions (rebellion/revolt)
  • iniquities (perversity)
• (how) "chastisement" (discipline/correction)
• (what) "brought"/"are"
  • "peace" (completeness, soundness, welfare, peace)
  • "healed" (to mend/to cure)

I agree with all of this, which merely proves an "atonement" was made, not that WRATH was TRANSFERRED to accomplish it.

Isaiah 53:11-12 [ESV]

11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; ​

by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, ​

make many to be accounted righteous, ​

and he shall bear their iniquities. ​

12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, ​

and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, ​

because he poured out his soul to death ​

and was numbered with the transgressors; ​

yet he bore the sin of many, ​

and makes intercession for the transgressors.​

Later in Isaiah 53, we see the reason explained not as a transfer of wrath, not as a punishment of the Son BY the Father, but as anguish suffered by the Son to achieve a common goal ... Christ was fulfilling the duty of a Great High Priest and making intercession. That is not NOTHING, but that also is not SUFFERING THE WRATH OF GOD to appease Justice.

This brings me back to my Thread about the Sword of the Spirit not being sharp enough to work on Believers; when it should. You should believe as Saint Peter said, 'This is what Joel said about [Christ's Crucifixion], it was the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord's Wrath'...
Acts 2:16+20...

I wish to quote the scriptures myself to be able to offer 'apologetic' support for the position, so please quote the exact verse where PETER and JOEL use the word "WRATH" and teach that "Christ's Crucifixion was the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord's Wrath".

 

[atpollard]

Does the principle of penal substitution as presented in the Bible (and I believe it is) teach it as "transferred" wrath? Or is that your term? (Serious question, not a commentary.)

I would state it this way: Sin does need to meet God's justice for no single atttibute of God is ever, or ever can be, compromised by any of the others. Sin must be punished, and it must be punished for the sinner in order for the sinner to be taken from its grasp, and given to God for his kingdom. The mercy is not simply in pardoning. It is in expiating---extinguishing the guilt. And it must be real. The penalty for sin is death. That is justice, and it is all his other attributes as well and in equal measure---including love.

Here is the issue ... WRATH. What does it mean?

Start with the BIBLE ...

• Exodus 32:10 [ESV] "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you."
• [H639] ʼaph, af; from H599; properly, the nose or nostril; hence, the face, and occasionally a person; also (from the rapid breathing in passion) ire:—anger(-gry), before, countenance, face, forebearing, forehead, (long-) suffering, nose, nostril, snout, × worthy, wrath.
• Romans 2:5 [ESV] "But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed."
• [G3709] ὀργή orgḗ, or-gay'; from G3713; properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence); by implication punishment:—anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.

Now we have a working definition from Scripture.

Is God ANGRY at SIN? Does God's WRATH burn towards SIN?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that it does so we don't need to even argue that point.

Then GOD would be angry at OUR SINS, too (so far, so good).
If we REFUSED to repent, we would one day face JUDGEMENT and there would be a "Day of Wrath" when the Wrath of God would be poured out upon all the wicked mankind. If we rejected Jesus, we would face the WRATH for our SIN.

I think that we are probably in agreement.

We did repent and our sins were forgiven and for we who believe "there is now no judgement" (John 3:18). So we SOMEHOW got from Storing WRATH for our SINS to FORGIVEN.

There is no disagreement on WHO is forgiven. There is no disagreement on the "blood of Christ" as the KEY to that forgiveness.

What happened to the WRATH? That is where there is disagreement.

• OPTION 1: God the Father placed our GUILT upon Jesus so that JUSTICE could be satisfied by delivering the STORED WRATH to Jesus instead of to us - JUSTICE AND MERCY for God's people.
• OPTION 2: Jesus placed our SIN upon himself and destroyed it, thus redeeming a lost people for Himself and the Father - JUSTICE or MERCY for all people.

Let us examine the OT sacrifice as a foreshadow (since Jesus is both the LAMB and the HIGH PRIEST in the NT).

• The SIN of the people is placed on the lamb.
• The PRIEST kills the lamb and sprinkles its blood to remove the GUILT from the people.
• Does the WRATH of GOD fall on the TO Lamb? Does God burn with anger towards that Lamb? Does God demand that lanb suffer the WRATH that the people deserved for their sin?
• What about the PRIEST? Does the Priest hate that Lamb and want it to suffer? Does the Priest pour his WRATH upon that Lamb, inflicting extra suffering for the unspeakable evil of the people?
• What does the JUSTICE of God demand of that lamb and Priest to allow God to forgive their sin?

Now let us examine Jesus as both HIGH PRIEST and LAMB.

• The HIGH PRIEST transfers the sin of the people to the LAMB [He who knew no sin became sin].
• The HIGH PRIEST slays the LAMB quickly because the LAMB must die to obtain its BLOOD [No one takes my life, I have the power to lay it down and I have the power to take it back up].
• The BLOOD of the LAMB is sprinkled on the people and their GUILT is removed [you were ransomed with the precious blood of Christ].
• So that GOD will remember their sins no more [there is now no condemnation for those who believe].

I see GRACE rather than a transfer of WRATH or a legal transaction. FAITH rewarded with MERCY ...

John 3:14-18 [ESV]

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness[1], so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.​

[1] Numbers 21:4-9 [ESV]

From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. And the people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food." Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. And the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you. Pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.​

• A story about LOOK and BELIEVE and LIVE ... not about transferring punishment from the guilty to the innocent to satisfy JUSTICE.

 

[Arial]

Let us examine the OT sacrifice as a foreshadow (since Jesus is both the LAMB and the HIGH PRIEST in the NT).

• The SIN of the people is placed on the lamb.
• The PRIEST kills the lamb and sprinkles its blood to remove the GUILT from the people.
• Does the WRATH of GOD fall on the TO Lamb? Does God burn with anger towards that Lamb? Does God demand that lanb suffer the WRATH that the people deserved for their sin?
• What about the PRIEST? Does the Priest hate that Lamb and want it to suffer? Does the Priest pour his WRATH upon that Lamb, inflicting extra suffering for the unspeakable evil of the people?
• What does the JUSTICE of God demand of that lamb and Priest to allow God to forgive their sin?

Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. The life is in the blood. The OT sacrifices never conquered sin, were never intended to, never offered or gave eternal life to anyone. And were not the wrath of God being poured out. It was a temporary covering for sin----the at some point met justice for all the unfaithful---never intended to do what Christ would come to do. It was a temporary measure in God's eternal plan of redemption, until the Redeemer would come and conquer. The animal sacrifices were a death for a death substitution. Not a ransom.

But just to be clear, if you are arguing that I am saying God poured his wrath out on Jesus, transferred his wrath to Jesus, I have been clear from the beginning, that I do not think that is what penal substitution is. It may be the official definition of penal substitution---I don't Know---- it if it is, I think it is incorrect. But I do believe the substitution was penal. A penalty was paid----that is where the relationship to justice and mercy come in.

Now let us examine Jesus as both HIGH PRIEST and LAMB.

• The HIGH PRIEST transfers the sin of the people to the LAMB [He who knew no sin became sin].
• The HIGH PRIEST slays the LAMB quickly because the LAMB must die to obtain its BLOOD [No one takes my life, I have the power to lay it down and I have the power to take it back up].
• The BLOOD of the LAMB is sprinkled on the people and their GUILT is removed [you were ransomed with the precious blood of Christ].
• So that GOD will remember their sins no more [there is now no condemnation for those who believe].

I see GRACE rather than a transfer of WRATH or a legal transaction. FAITH rewarded with MERCY ...

I don 't claim God's wrath was transferred to Jesus. However he did fulfill the just penalty for sin by having our sins imputed to him on the cross. It is not wrath that is Jesus is dying to deal with. It is sin. If the sin is dealt with, and in a way entirely consistent with the attribute of just that belongs to God, there is no more wrath where there is no sin. (Imputed righteousness.) What is the just penalty for sin? Death that will meet his wrath if it is not removed by one who is able to remove it, by dying in their place. Dying in their place. Not, "facing wrath in their place".

Of course it is grace.

 

[Arial]

To be fair … NOBODY would ever phrase it as I have.

On the other hand, people will say something like “GOD is perfect in his JUSTICE and perfect in his MERCY, therefore God cannot simply Forgive Sin by just ‘letting it slide’ without satisfying the demand of God’s perfect JUSTICE with the payment of the WRATH that we have earned by our sins.”

Their very pious and God honoring sounding version is the “FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT” to what I stated … “God demands his pound of flesh to satisfy his wrath before he is free to show mercy”.

So my response remains “where does SCRIPTURE say that?” … where is the “Transfer of Wrath” discussed?

I don't believe it is. It is an interpretation which I happen to think is wrong. But that does not mean there is NO penal substitution in the atonement.

 

[Arial]

So “death he suffered” may have served a purpose other than our punishment for sin (because we still die).
It is the same criticism that I have with UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT (if Jesus died for the forgiveness of everyone, then everyone would be forgiven). So if Jesus was killed by God because that was the penalty we deserved (Jesus died OUR death) then we should not die … ever. Why is God exacting punishment for the same thing twice?

1. Jesus wasn't killed by God but by men, according to the will and purpose of God.

2. In Christ the believer identifies with his death (it was for them and in their place. It takes them out of Adam (of the dust) and places them in Christ (born of the Spirit). And his RESURRECTION. We too will be raised from our death to eternal life with God. (1 Cor 15:20-58)

54-56 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written" "Death is swallowed up in victory." "Oh death where is your victory? O death where is your sting?" The stand of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are sown perishable (our bodies in death) and are raised, Imperishable.

3. He didn't die our death, he died in our place for sin we are guilty of and he is not. The purpose is seen in the 1 Cor 15 passages--20-58.

 

[Arial]

[1] Numbers 21:4-9 [ESV]
From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. And the people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food." Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. And the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you. Pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

• A story about LOOK and BELIEVE and LIVE ... not about transferring punishment from the guilty to the innocent to satisfy JUSTICE.

Well Jesus quoted that in John 3, so in what way was he applying it to himself, when he mentioned it to Nicodemus? The OT is a part of the Covenant of Redemption, playing a pivotal role in redemption, but Christ is the fulfillment of it. So things we see in the OT like what you quoted from Numbers, are historical accounts, and this particular one has nothing to do with transferring or not transferring wrath or of justice.

 

[atpollard]

But that does not mean there is NO penal substitution in the atonement.

That depends on how one is going to define "PENAL SUBSTITUTION" ... if you are claiming that Jesus bore God's wrath in our place, then I repeat: "Show me the verse that teaches that".

[I am not being pendantic and looking for some exact phrase] ... but scripture MUST teach the concept if we are going to claim that God does it as a FACT and not just AN OPINION (an opinion that is contradicted by other verses of scripture).

 

[atpollard]

Well Jesus quoted that in John 3, so in what way was he applying it to himself, when he mentioned it to Nicodemus? The OT is a part of the Covenant of Redemption, playing a pivotal role in redemption, but Christ is the fulfillment of it. So things we see in the OT like what you quoted from Numbers, are historical accounts, and this particular one has nothing to do with transferring or not transferring wrath or of justice.

It has to do with how God saves ... then (MOSES) people already under condemnation of God and sentenced to PHYSICAL DEATH, could obtain mercy by an act of FAITH [looking to sin - a snake - already judged - the significance of Bronze in the Temple - and suspended from a pole - cursed is everyone that hangs from a pole). In the exact same way, God would save people in the NT - sin judged and condemned and cursed and hung from a pole - and those that LOOKED to Jesus and BELIEVED (an act of FAITH) would be spared of the judgement that they were already under. That is why Jesus brings LIFE to "whosoever believes" [John 3:16].

It is a model for forgiveness that contradicts the idea of transferring our punishment to Christ ... it is about Jesus defeating SIN and DEATH to rescue us. It is not "the Judge that pays our fine out of his own pocket" as some have described it, it is "the Lifeguard that dives into the stormy water to drag the drowning man to shore" ... defeating the ocean and the waves and death to rescue a person that cannot save themselves.

 

[atpollard]

Give me your definition of God's wrath.

WRATH. What does it mean?

Start with the BIBLE ...

• Exodus 32:10 [ESV] "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you."
• [H639] ʼaph, af; from H599; properly, the nose or nostril; hence, the face, and occasionally a person; also (from the rapid breathing in passion) ire:—anger(-gry), before, countenance, face, forebearing, forehead, (long-) suffering, nose, nostril, snout, × worthy, wrath.
• Romans 2:5 [ESV] "But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed."
• [G3709] ὀργή orgḗ, or-gay'; from G3713; properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence); by implication punishment:—anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.

Now we have a working definition from Scripture.

[from Post #24]

[EDIT]:
Since you deleted the comment,
Let me extend a different invitation:
Define PENAL SUBSTITUTION ATONEMENT (PSA)
... who knows, I may agree with your definition.

 

[Arial]

That depends on how one is going to define "PENAL SUBSTITUTION" ... if you are claiming that Jesus bore God's wrath in our place, then I repeat: "Show me the verse that teaches that".

[I am not being pendantic and looking for some exact phrase] ... but scripture MUST teach the concept if we are going to claim that God does it as a FACT and not just AN OPINION (an opinion that is contradicted by other verses of scripture).

Penal: Punishment as for breaking the law.
Substitution: One taking the place of another or one thing for another.

1 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Peter 2:24 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.

That is penal substitution without saying God exacted his pound of flesh out on Jesus. He really bore our sins, he really died the death he did not deserve and we do, in our place. You might say he died and carried our sins into the very maw of death and conquered it. What do you think was the point of him suffering and dying on the cross, the death saved for the worst of criminals. Was it just God saying to his Son, "If you will go hang on a cross and die I will raise you from the dead and forgive the sins of all those who trust in you." No. He was actually doing something that only the Son of God can do.

Big picture since we often tend to think salvation is all about us and all for us. God through Christ is destroying the destroyer forever. We are just the means by which he is doing it.

 

[Arial]

It has to do with how God saves ... then (MOSES) people already under condemnation of God and sentenced to PHYSICAL DEATH, could obtain mercy by an act of FAITH [looking to sin - a snake - already judged - the significance of Bronze in the Temple - and suspended from a pole - cursed is everyone that hangs from a pole). In the exact same way, God would save people in the NT - sin judged and condemned and cursed and hung from a pole - and those that LOOKED to Jesus and BELIEVED (an act of FAITH) would be spared of the judgement that they were already under. That is why Jesus brings LIFE to "whosoever believes" [John 3:16].

You have just undermined your own argument against penal substitution with what I put in bold. So is your point that it has nothing to do with justice or what?

 

[David1701]

You do know that I understand the THEOLOGY. I was taught it and fully embraced it. The issue came when I went to the BIBLE to attempt to DEFEND the theology that I had been taught. Scripture does not say what the THEOLOGY states. The THEOLOGY fills in gaps with assumptions and goes beyond what is actually written in the word.

So 'splainin' theology to me will not help. It is not what theology claims that scripture actually STATES that I have issue with. It is the parts you just ASSUME and add on top of that. PSA Reformed Theologians are following in the footsteps of the Scribes and Pharisees by piling HUMAN TRADITIONS and INTERPRETATIONS on top of the actual SCRIPTURE and treating the two as equal. THAT is what I am objecting to in the name of "Sola Scriptura".

So how much of your post is LITERALLY what Scripture states and how much is ADDITIONAL information that is not stated as you state it?
How much poison do you need to add to spoil a meal?

Tell me the specific statements in my post with which you disagree and we can discuss them (and I will provide Scriptural support for my position).

 

[ReverendRV]

I will stay out of this one. . and I'm in agreement with you for the record.

Is that you?

 

[civic]

Is that you?

Yes lol

 

[civic]

Between work, the forum and a new coffee roasting forum I started I’m pretty busy. Then I just started pickleball and I’m hooked. I was a former table tennis tournament player and a decent tennis player. Now golf’s taken a back seat. Still doing Mens discipleship on Tuesday , Thursday and Saturday mornings

 

[atpollard]

1 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Peter 2:24 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.

That is penal substitution without saying God exacted his pound of flesh out on Jesus. He really bore our sins, he really died the death he did not deserve and we do, in our place

Where does it say that?
Just underline the words that indicate he died the death we deserve in our place.
Where does GOD say that is why Jesus died?

• 1 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
• 1 Peter 2:24 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.

Remember, the point of PSA is that all other explanations for WHY (Christus Victor, Ransom theory, etc.) are incorrect and “Jesus died the death we deserve in our place” is the ONLY correct reason why Jesus died. So the Bible darn well better teach that.

 

[atpollard]

You have just undermined your own argument against penal substitution with what I put in bold. So is your point that it has nothing to do with justice or what?

Wow, I would have thought by now my point was clear.

• Our PUNISHMENT was not suffered by Jesus in our place. That is NOT why Jesus did what Jesus did.
• Our PUNISHMENT was just FORGIVEN. It was not GIVEN to anybody.
• GOD did not punish JESUS (period). As you stated, EVIL MEN killed Jesus.

 

[atpollard]

Tell me the specific statements in my post with which you disagree and we can discuss them (and I will provide Scriptural support for my position).

Sure …

As far as God pouring out his anger on Jesus is concerned, we know that God is angry with sin; and Jesus was made sin for us.

1. The FATHER does not pour out his anger on the SON … the FATHER loves the SON and the two are ONE GOD.
2. There is ZERO link between the anger of GOD towards our sin and Jesus being made sin for us. Our PUNISHMENT was not given to another, it was FORGIVEN. Jesus actions were all about REDEMPTION, not about JUSTICE.

Present SCRIPTURES that you like and I will happily discuss them with you.