Transferred Wrath

[David1701]

This is the resolution to this debate; we aren't saying what he thinks we're saying. Remove this from the Arena of Ideas, and now we can finally get somewhere...

Now when we say Jesus was Made Sin on our behalf, the Shield of, "Cosmic Child Abuse, etc"; can be captured; like a Chess piece, to never be used again...

There is another important factor here; and that is that God did not treat Jesus as if he had been a sinner; but he treated him as sin itself.

 

[ReverendRV]

There is another important factor here; and that is that God did not treat Jesus as if he had been a sinner; but he treated him as sin itself.

I added a line to my Post...

 

[Eleanor]

There is another important factor here; and that is that God did not treat Jesus as if he had been a sinner; but he treated him as sin itself.

Oh, wow!

Scripture?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I assume you are speaking of "bearing the wrath of God."

By doing something in its place: being a substitute.

Joe has wrath for Max because because Max stole five dollars. Joe's wrath for Max is satisfied when Penny gives Joe ten dollars. Note: Joe never had wrath for Penny. Penny's act was imputed to Max such that Joe forgave Max.

Again, how is Christ our substitute if he never received the divine wrath our sins were due?

1. Yes, I am referring to God's holy wrath.

2. Christ did not do something in the place of divine wrath. As our substitute, he bore the divine wrath that our transgressions and iniquities were due, having been imputed to him on the cross (counted as his own).

3. Penny is a picture of Christ only if she paid the money to Joe because it was HER sin and debt. Since Max's sin (theft) and debt (money owed) was counted as her own, Joe did have wrath for Penny. The reason Joe could have friendly relations with Max is because Max never stole anything or owed any money (Ps. 103:12; Lev. 16:21-22; Isa. 43:25; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 7:19; Heb 8:12; 10:17).

4. It has not been established that Penny paid Joe ten dollars.

 

[Eleanor]

I assume you are speaking of "baring the wrath of God".

By doing something in its place .... being a substitute.
Joe has wrath for Max because because Max stole $5. Joe's wrath for Max is satisfied when Penny give Joe $10. Note: Joe never had wrath for Penny. Penny's act was imputed to Max such that Joe forgave Max.

You have conflated wrath and money as the debt.

But in the justice of God, wrath (not money) is the sin debt incurred, and
you have failed to treat satisfaction of wrath as the only legal payment for the debt.

 

[fastfredy0]

"Christ was not sinless, but he never sinned. The sin for which he was punished was not committed by him but imputed to him."

Agreed

However, don't miss that crucial part of penal substitutionary atonement: "he was punished" (penal). But the sin for which he was punished was imputed—counted as his own—being the sins of the elect (substitionary). And it was God who punished him for those transgressions and iniquities (Isa. 53:4-6), so as to remove them and bring them to an end, accomplishing reconciliation for us (atonement), whereby he "will aquit many, for he carried their sins" (vv. 10-11)—

Interesting way to put it. Maybe we can compromise and say Christ's punishment was imputed. But, wrong that I might be, I don't think one can be "punished" if they have done nothing wrong per the definition of "punishment". That's the way I understand the word.

punish is "to impose a penalty for a fault, offense, or violation,"

Well, if Punish means you can impose a penalty on the innocent then you have a strong point.
Aside: Thanks for addressing the crux of our contention which is the definition of PUNISH. Seems we define it slightly differently.
...and you gave me an idea.... I will ask ChatGPT the following question and see what it says. It won't prove which of our definitions is correct, but it is an impartial referee.
The question for ChatGPT is: Using the definition of "punish", can a person who did not commit a crime be PUNISHED for it by an authority that knows said person has not committed the crime? (aside: I haven't asked ChatGPT yet see here goes ... crosses his fingers .. lol)

ChatGPT's answer:

Definition of "Punish":​

To "punish" someone typically means to subject them to a penalty or sanction in response to wrongdoing, with the intention of causing them to suffer or face consequences, usually as a form of justice, discipline, or deterrence.


So the key elements are:

• An action or penalty imposed,
• Directed at someone,
• As a response to a perceived or actual wrongdoing.

Now, your scenario:
A person who did not commit a crime is punished by an authority that knows the person is innocent.

In this case:

• There is a penalty or harm inflicted →
• It is done by an authority →
• But the authority knows the person is innocent →

So, technically, this would still meet the basic criteria of punishment in the sense that:
The person is subjected to harm or a penalty by an authority.
BUT — and here’s the crux — it breaks the moral and traditional justification for punishment, which is based on the person actually having committed a wrong.

Philosophical & Legal Angle:​

Many definitions of "punishment" presume that the target is guilty. But linguistically, a person can be punished, even if wrongly — people often say things like:

"He was punished for a crime he didn’t commit."
So yes, someone can be punished even when innocent, even if the authority knows they're innocent — but in that case, it is more accurately described as abuse of power, persecution, or injustice rather than legitimate punishment.

Well CRAP ... lol ... looks like ChatGPT is on your side. O.K., given ChatGPTs answer I've changed my mind.

I now state: Christ was PUNISHED for our sins. I concede. *white flag*

 

[fastfredy0]

I told him the same thing some time ago, that I couldn't help but see him as his avatar.

Maybe I should change my avatar to Brad Pitt

 

[fastfredy0]

Maybe I should change my avatar to Brad Pitt

I'm told to be humble, so a Brad Pitt avatar would do.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Well CRAP ... lol ... looks like ChatGPT is on your side.

It usually is.

 

[makesends]

BUT — and here’s the crux — it breaks the moral and traditional justification for punishment, which is based on the person actually having committed a wrong.

Nevertheless, it does not contradict the definition given.

But more, I would disagree that it breaks the moral 'justification' for punishment. The moral justification for punishment is based on God himself, where anything against him MUST be punished, and that, by death. God does not 'live up to' moral justification. He IS the moral justification. It may be our traditional justification that demands that the sinner be punished, and not the substitute, but God's justice does not demand that. I hesitate to say that only the sin be punished, and not the sinner, for several reasons, but I will point out that the one who is identified with that sin is the one who is punished.

Philosophical & Legal Angle:​

Many definitions of "punishment" presume that the target is guilty. But linguistically, a person can be punished, even if wrongly — people often say things like:

"He was punished for a crime he didn’t commit."
So yes, someone can be punished even when innocent, even if the authority knows they're innocent — but in that case, it is more accurately described as abuse of power, persecution, or injustice rather than legitimate punishment.

It may be worth noting here, something you and I have talked about before, that, particularly in philosophy, it can be seen that two kinds of arguments are often in play, without the players even realizing it. 1. Arguments concerning reality 2. Arguments about how we talk about reality. The second is what seems to me to be going on here. We can argue about the worth of a combination of words, but does "what people say" really have any bearing here?

But, further, if you want to call it 'injustice', then understand that regardless of our arguments, here, you and I agree that Jesus did not deserve what he got. So to call that 'injustice' is a mistake —God is not unjust, and HE purposed that the substitution come to pass. So, all we can really mean by that is that he did not deserve it and we did deserve it. We don't know God's point of view here. All we do know is that he is altogether just, and that the sin that 'bruised his heel' was, to his glory, a tool to accomplish his Particular Creation. We know a little about grace.

 

[Carbon]

Carbon said:
I think you lack understanding of the Trinity and the hypostatic union.

To the defense of my brother, @fastfredy0 , I have to say here that these two accusations should apply to his statements about 'punishment' and 'excess payment', but not to Freddy. If you look at his one statement next to the other, it is obvious he believes that Christ paid an awful payment, and that, like us, he well knows it was undeserved.

I understand Eleanor's puzzlement —"This doesn't sound like fastfreddy!" (or however she put it)— I'm puzzled too. It is almost as though he has decided to soften his 'Reformed' stance and usual necessary logic. I can't say why or how, but only speculate that his mind pegged on something that he hadn't thought of, and went beyond the implications of sound logic to a wooden logic drawn from conflating grace with justice.

But let's at least admit that the Freddy we know is not lacking in sound doctrine. At the core, he agrees that Christ bore our punishment; in fact, somewhere in this very discussion, I think I saw him say so.

But I can tell he is still in there somewhere behind the keyboard, because of his self-deprecation. Well, I'm not going to be out-humbled! Give it up, Freddy!

I find it very offensive when people who claim to be Bible-believing Christians deny what scripture teaches by twisting and making words mean something they don't mean or not mean something they are meant to mean. It's difficult to sit by (as it should be) when some say Christ did not endure the Father's wrath, when it's very clear he did. Among other things. These are not to be taken lightly. This is the gospel being stripped right in front of our eyes IMO. If anyone feels I am overdoing it? Please, send me a warning. I submit to this leadership team also.
Perhaps if some can not quite understand clear scriptural teaching, they should humble themselves and choose to remain silent.
Keep in mind also what our Puritan brothers and sisters would have said to these, and how they would have reacted. Should we do any less?
I say, if someone is against it, come out with clear proof, I mean clear, which cannot be denied, and present it. Realize, you put yourself on the side that has attacked and battled against the church and Christian doctrine for centuries.

 

[makesends]

I find it very offensive when people who claim to be Bible-believing Christians deny what scripture teaches by twisting and making words mean something they don't mean or not mean something they are meant to mean. It's difficult to sit by (as it should be) when some say Christ did not endure the Father's wrath, when it's very clear he did. Among other things. These are not to be taken lightly. This is the gospel being stripped right in front of our eyes IMO. If anyone feels I am overdoing it? Please, send me a warning. I submit to this leadership team also.
Perhaps if some can not quite understand clear scriptural teaching, they should humble themselves and choose to remain silent.
Keep in mind also what our Puritan brothers and sisters would have said to these, and how they would have reacted. Should we do any less?
I say, if someone is against it, come out with clear proof, I mean clear, which cannot be denied, and present it. Realize, you put yourself on the side that has attacked and battled against the church and Christian doctrine for centuries.

Not to deny any of what you said. As I said, details matter.

But we have @fastfredy0 coming up with, what to me, anyway, seems a question needing understood and explained. I think he wanted answers to something that struck him as contradictory, in his mind. I don't see him as trying to introduce heresy nor new doctrine. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Carbon]

Not to deny any of what you said. As I said, details matter.

But we have @fastfredy0 coming up with, what to me, anyway, seems a question needing understood and explained. I think he wanted answers to something that struck him as contradictory, in his mind. I don't see him as trying to introduce heresy nor new doctrine. But maybe I'm wrong.

Not to make this about him, because it really isn't. But let me just say, I admire him and sincerely appreciate his understanding of most of God's word. None of us is perfect, and we will learn our entire lives. And to be fair, I do not believe he has come right out and denied any essential Christian doctrine. Though it seems it may be off in that direction, I am human also, and could be seriously wrong.

 

[ReverendRV]

Interesting way to put it. Maybe we can compromise and say Christ's punishment was imputed. But, wrong that I might be, I don't think one can be "punished" if they have done nothing wrong per the definition of "punishment". That's the way I understand the word.

It would go both ways, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't it then be true that no one can be "Forgiven" through Imputation if they haven't done enough right, per the definition of "Righteousness"? If the undeserving CAN receive a Record of Righteousness, the Undeserving One can receive Records of unrighteousness. God Hates uneven scales...


If you say No, isn't that Special Pleading for one case but not the other?

 

[ReverendRV]

I now state: Christ was PUNISHED for our sins. I concede. *white flag*

Ooopps, I didn't see this...


We need more of, 'people recognizing the Truth'...

 

[Hazelelponi]

consider how much God has done for each of us and we can do NOTHING for Him. (Job 35:7-8)

We can do nothing for Him, out of love He gave everything for His Bride, it's a gift worth everything and because of the Magesty of His Glory exalted and magnified in Christ, we love Him with all that is in us to love...

.. and for the praise of His Glory we give what we have to them...

"Silver and gold have I none, but what I have I give to you - in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise and walk!"

That's just my memory, might not be word for word. That's what we have to give, we were created for good works I believe. The good work is to tell of the good news ..

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: Well CRAP ... lol ... looks like ChatGPT is on your side.

It usually is.

Gee, now you're sounding like my wife!

 

[Eleanor]

Agreed

Interesting way to put it. Maybe we can compromise and say Christ's punishment was imputed. But, wrong that I might be, I don't think one can be "punished" if they have done nothing wrong per the definition of "punishment". That's the way I understand the word.

It's not about how we understand it, it's about what Scripture clearly shows it to mean. . .and the need to question Scripture.

 

[David1701]

Oh, wow!

Scripture?

2 Cor. 5:21 (Darby) Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that *we* might become God's righteousness in him.

 

[David1701]

I find it very offensive when people who claim to be Bible-believing Christians deny what scripture teaches by twisting and making words mean something they don't mean or not mean something they are meant to mean. It's difficult to sit by (as it should be) when some say Christ did not endure the Father's wrath, when it's very clear he did. Among other things. These are not to be taken lightly. This is the gospel being stripped right in front of our eyes IMO. If anyone feels I am overdoing it? Please, send me a warning. I submit to this leadership team also.
Perhaps if some can not quite understand clear scriptural teaching, they should humble themselves and choose to remain silent.
Keep in mind also what our Puritan brothers and sisters would have said to these, and how they would have reacted. Should we do any less?
I say, if someone is against it, come out with clear proof, I mean clear, which cannot be denied, and present it. Realize, you put yourself on the side that has attacked and battled against the church and Christian doctrine for centuries.

That sums up my feelings exactly.