Transferred Wrath

[Hazelelponi]

Your wish is my command.


Sure, Since I am probably not qualified to speak for ALL opponents of PSA, I will speak for myself (since I do use the term):

When I say "transferred" I mean it in the past tense of the common definition of the English word "transfer" which is described by Merriam-Webster as:

transfer (transitive verb)
1a: to convey from one person, place, or situation to another
1b: to cause to pass from one to another

With respect to PSA, it is the alleged TRANSFER from US to JESUS of

• sin
• guilt
• wrath (anger) of God
• punishment of God

So we are speaking of [I am not claiming all of these are false, at this point I am just listing things that PSA advocates have at one point or another claimed HAVE been transferred as part of your request to define "transfer"]

• our sin transferred (conveyed or passed) to Jesus
• our guilt transferred (conveyed or passed) to Jesus
• God's wrath (to be defined next) transferred (conveyed or passed) from us to Jesus
• our punishment transferred (conveyed or passed) to Jesus

What is WRATH? [again, I am probably not qualified to speak for ALL opponents of PSA, I will speak for myself]

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.

described by Merriam-Webster as:

wrath (noun)
1: strong vengeful anger or indignation
2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime

So when I use the term WRATH, I am describing God's "vengeful anger" or "retributory punishment for an offense or a crime" as depicted by a person flaring their nostril in anger or a violent passion ... which is how the BIBLE defines the term.

As a starting point ...

• God is angry at sin [Deuteronomy 9:18, 1 Kings 16:2, Jeremiah 18:23]
• God abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man [Psalm 5:6]
• God is capable of wrath [Exodus 32:10-11, 1 Samuel 28:18, 2 Kings 3:27]

For PSA, the questions become:

• God's wrath against our sin?
• God's wrath against us?
• God's wrath against Jesus?
• [Do they exists and what happened to them?]

I am not attempting to ASK or ANSWER anything in this post. You have asked for and I have attempted to provide DEFINITIONS of terms and approximations of how these terms might apply to PSA.


Has this met your request?

Maybe we need a new thread then

Are you ascribing all this as emotional states?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Not that I am prepared to argue that point, but what are the odds of being MORE CALVINIST than "Got Questions"?

They're Calvinist?

That's a surprise.

 

[Carbon]

Which of those is not part of PSA?
[Penal means PUNISHED and Substitution means IN PLACE OF, so what IS your explanation of Atonement? ]

From the atonement, sin and its penalty are removed (expiation) from the elect by the substitutions sacrifice. It was both expiation and propitiation.

 

[Carbon]

Not that I am prepared to argue that point, but what are the odds of being MORE CALVINIST than "Got Questions"?

Those odds are great since it's influenced by Arminianism.

 

[Carbon]

They're Calvinist?

That's a surprise.

Actually, no, they are not Calvinistic.

 

[Carbon]

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

After reading Isaiah 53. Would you show me where in the bible it teaches "Christ took . . . someone else's wrath besides the Father's on his shoulders?"

Or will you deny there is any wrath in Isaiah 53?

 

[atpollard]

Maybe we need a new thread then

Are you ascribing all this as emotional states?

Wrath is an emotional state, however, none of us are qualified to measure GOD's emotional state, so that will lead nowhere.
Can you tell me that you have NEVER heard anyone describe God as "angry" at our sin? If it helps, view "wrath" in terms of ACTION rather than emotion. If you get a spanking, your parent was probably "unhappy" with your action. So we can INFER "wrath/anger" from either God's statements or God's actions. "Storing up wrath for a day of wrath" implies that God is "unhappy" about something.

 

[atpollard]

From the atonement, sin and its penalty are removed (expiation) from the elect by the substitutions sacrifice. It was both expiation and propitiation.

Then the statement from the AI was true. The innocent (Jesus) was punished (crucified) for the guilty (us).

 

[Carbon]

Then the statement from the AI was true. The innocent (Jesus) was punished (crucified) for the guilty (us).

Sorry, I don't pay much attention to AI. I think that's a bad direction to go. I don't really care what AI says. No offence.

 

[atpollard]

Actually, no, they are not Calvinistic.

I stand corrected.

 

[Carbon]

I stand corrected.

No big deal, brother. Many people think they are.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Wrath is an emotional state, however, none of us are qualified to measure GOD's emotional state, so that will lead nowhere.
Can you tell me that you have NEVER heard anyone describe God as "angry" at our sin? If it helps, view "wrath" in terms of ACTION rather than emotion. If you get a spanking, your parent was probably "unhappy" with your action. So we can INFER "wrath/anger" from either God's statements or God's actions. "Storing up wrath for a day of wrath" implies that God is "unhappy" about something.

.
God is always angry with sin, He hates it.

Hate in the sense there's no sin in Him His purity is absolutely pure and He has no part in sin.

When we hate something we have no fellowship it. We are asked to hate sin, and to hate the world system that is at enmity with God.

This is not an emotion, it's a state of being that eschews evil.

God is not a man. When we use words they should be in the context of God, who doesn't change states.

 

[atpollard]

Sorry, I don't pay much attention to AI. I think that's a bad direction to go. I don't really care what AI says. No offence.

No offense taken, you just emphatically agreed that NOTHING in the post was true and some of the post was so Biblically sound that rejecting it places one outside of orthodox Christianity [into heresy].

 

[fastfredy0]

Actually, no, they are not Calvinistic.

They're Calvinist?

That's a surprise.

t that I am prepared to argue that point, but what are the odds of being MORE CALVINIST than "Got Questions"?

I love gotquestions.org. My experience from reading their answers is that they lean towards Calvinism. To quantify my opinion ... on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being Arminianism and 10 being Calvinism I would put the scale at 8.

 

[atpollard]

After reading Isaiah 53. Would you show me where in the bible it teaches "Christ took . . . someone else's wrath besides the Father's on his shoulders?"

Or will you deny there is any wrath in Isaiah 53?

Come let us reason together and look closely at what it says and what it does not say.

Isaiah 53:4, 10 [ESV] 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. ... 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.

In verse 4, note closely that it DOES NOT say that Jesus WAS smitten by God. It DOES say that "WE" esteemed him smitten by God. This is an opinion of men rather than a pronouncement from God. Let us quickly look at the fulfillment of this in the NT:

• Matthew 27:39-44 [ESV] And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.
• Are these really the people whose spiritual insight we want to be following? These are the people that "esteemed him stricken by God" as Isaiah predicted.

In verse 10 it states that it was THE WILL OF God to crush Jesus. First, acknowledging what it DOES SAY ... this action (presumably the beating and crucifixion, we must infer the meaning of "crush" since Jesus was not literally crushed) was the WILL of God. God meant it to happen just as it did. Now if I may be permitted to split a "God-breathed" hair. It would have been a simple matter for Isaiah to have written that the LORD crushed him (Jesus), but he did not. It was merely the will of God that Jesus BE crushed.

Who killed Jesus?

• Act 2:22-23 [ESV] "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."
• "Lawless men" killed Jesus. While they were clearly the tool of God's "will", there is nothing suggesting they were the instrument of God's wrath ... Is there?

So who says Jesus death was about WRATH?
Only the crowd mocking God in Matthew 27 (and PSA).

Can you see why I am reluctant to embrace WRATH as God's motive without some clearer scriptural proof?

What if it was the will of the FATHER and SON that the beloved SON should be crushed (suffer and die at the hands of evil men) to obtain the goal of CURSING sin and utterly defeating its power over all who are "in Christ" ... thereby redeeming a people for the GODHEAD that will honor the SON and bring glory to the FATHER?
[WRATH never enters into the picture.] What in Isiah 53 needs to be changed? Anything?

 

[fastfredy0]

Who killed Jesus?

Eight individuals/groups who are responsible for Christ’s death.

Acts 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both 1) Herod and 2) Pontius Pilate, along with 3) the Gentiles and the 4) peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your 5) [Satan] head, and you shall bruise his heel.” John 16:11 concerning judgement, because the ruler of this world [Satan] is judged. The last are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Genesis 22:8 6) God will provide himself a lamb. Isaiah 53:10 Yet is pleased God to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, John 3:16, Romans 3:25 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.; Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Yet he 7) [Jesus] opened not his mouth. John 10:18 No one takes it from me [Jesus], but I lay it down of my own accord. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal 8) Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Back to my

 

[Hazelelponi]

We

to obtain the goal of CURSING sin and utterly defeating its power over all who are "in Christ" ... thereby redeeming a people for the GODHEAD that will honor the SON and bring glory to the FATHER?

Hey again.

What's a curse? What does it mean to curse sin?

Do you think it has anything to do with the curses for breaking the Covenant laws? (I linked to them)

Or is that a wild stretch of the imagination do you suppose? 'm just asking...

Seems a picture of God's wrath to me, if Scripture is to have one.

 

[Arial]

transfer (transitive verb)
1a: to convey from one person, place, or situation to another
1b: to cause to pass from one to another

With respect to PSA, it is the alleged TRANSFER from US to JESUS of

• sin
• guilt
• wrath (anger) of God
• punishment of God

And by using this word, the opponents manufacture a accusation against PSA that is not a part of PSA and then ask that they prove this from the Bible. Was that word found anywhere in the GotQuestions definition of PSA that you posted? Nope.

PSA does don allege that sin, or guilt, or wrath, or punishment was transferred to Jesus. It rather, agrees with the words of Scripture. 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. They weren't transferred from us to him. He bore them. On his body, On the cross. That word "bore" is anēnenken. To bring up, to offer, to bear, to carry up (on a high altar) as a sacrifice, offer up to God on high. He bore our sins on the cross and carried them away. He gave his body as the sacrifice for our sins penalty. His body took the penalty-----death. Wrath comes after the death of the sinner (or when Christ returns, all who have rejected him who remain alive, second death.

If our sins were transferred to him, they would be given to him, and he would have been a sinner.

wrath (noun)
1: strong vengeful anger or indignation
2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime

So when I use the term WRATH, I am describing God's "vengeful anger" or "retributory punishment for an offense or a crime" as depicted by a person flaring their nostril in anger or a violent passion ... which is how the BIBLE defines the term.

I actually know the meaning of the word "transfer" and I know the meaning of the word "wrath". What I was asking was why do the opponents say it is transferred wrath, rather than for example, poured out on him punishment. Do you see the difference?

 

[Arial]

Which of these are you seriously NOT claiming:

• JESUS was innocent,
• We were guilty
• Jesus was Punished

Which of those is not part of PSA?
[Penal means PUNISHED and Substitution means IN PLACE OF, so what IS your explanation of Atonement? ]

I am not disclaiming any of those things. But Jesus was standing as a substitute for us. That is why he came as one of us, why he fulfilled all righteousness, both the legal code and the moral code of the law, so that he could be our substitute. So it is not as though PSA is saying what its opponents claim-----that it is some kind of vengeful unjust punishment. "I will punish you instead of them." And just to jump ahead a bit, or in case you don't deal with the rest of what @fastfredy0 posted in that post----the fact that Jesus obeyed both the legal and moral code, is where justice comes into the equation in PSA.

 

[Arial]

What if it was the will of the FATHER and SON that the beloved SON should be crushed (suffer and die at the hands of evil men) to obtain the goal of CURSING sin and utterly defeating its power over all who are "in Christ" ... thereby redeeming a people for the GODHEAD that will honor the SON and bring glory to the FATHER?
[WRATH never enters into the picture.] What in Isiah 53 needs to be changed? Anything?

God doesn't need to obtain a goal of cursing sin. It is already a cursed thing. What Jesus came to do was to destroy sin and the destroyer. Ironically he does that by laying down his life for his sheep, becoming a curse for us. Not that he was actually a curse but took the curse in our place that he might go into the grave and disarm its power over those who are identified with him in his death, and rose to new life in him.